a ιν 
τ = 
= : 
δον 
STAN τὶ panes sinses 
ν “ewes 
τ WSs een 
oes maceete τ meen τ 
- Asien ποτ σφ στο 
ὭΣ ποτ" 
omen oop aS 
ewer ees : ewan hep pencpantnern 
aoe on ~igevke ame peers vuocewees 
πος om Same ΠΤ ΞΟ ΞΟΣΞ, ΣΤ Aaeveoea lap -ercevene 
soseeigare — teney sauen aan 
“sicaceventnep wenate -etervecmrererre 
so ieee ae hee gar 
eee Speeataey “She Sa 
eet pay eee 
vooeepeenenee iene ernie 
seve semen 
ecaeevenaeaemeae oar 
Sawer tomes moe 
we ττν 
LSet aoe ya enor 
- Ὁ TS nt See 
πον = Scare “mee sere 
- απ τῶ στῶν mone enna 
mt τ cwngeneme ond sarees 
πα — _— πος στο σοτν: 
pe d tek τος το y aneeeetes 
= = = 15:22... 
= = φπτος τοῖον ap veenrrnen 
= πέραν αν οι, ὃν. οοαθνα, Ἀν... ας κα 
Serre to carne Σ  Σ:: :Σ  ΣΣ  ταασ οι, ave seowe: me wrereneee 
SS -ΞΦ-Ξ - ~ — == 
— SS σπρατι πΣε rao meet <n wasenere 
SS OO Ee eee αἰ ρλανσαο, erie 
eee See Nitegeee Spa aeons 
Se τς πῶ an eee κι epee ee eee aca cewenpece 
Some gage ari wm taeenae tooo 
ταν πιο  - «τ pe ee τ = 
a eee eee ee ae ee ee mene apere — w loenaaceliegen dust-avesces 
ee ee ee ee ee eae ον aes SS 
a nei ve ed 
a eae tne opener entweren 
Seer ee en ee eee ee eee - — aon 
—— ene pee eee πον == 
ea AN πὰ σῦς 
ee een  εχ - -φν«ἀπτυσντττο κα = cooper cae 
ne ie «ὐραας —_- = = 
SSF ES ee ge = ae 
Pm ae ne nano ΤΩΣ —— aetna 
———— oT oe βοχχο σ: eons 
τσ - παν τον το τος ac = 
ae ne cre, NE nage σα Se Se 
a er = ae 
——— ee eet ines 
SS a 
eee Sn eee on ....ὕ... τον νύν οὐνοσασιαιν weenceen ne Scneuevunenn 
Somme ons meee enranry ag pememempe may Αδαια σε ς..... το a Ὁ 
---π- τ τ π π-ππσ  πσι τατος τ EE 
——— eee een ππυσασς------ 
Ρ-πτοοα eo omnes aanen 
— a τ enon ποτ velo 
Se ES Ὶ ΤΙΞΣΞΣ. ΟΣ (cavern 
So cre pene poe aoe Saree inane perenne 
eee — een 
eee ao eee ree a we eyiper canon gua owen meee — 
"πο ππλΑν τ τόνον. σοτοσις τ ττοννα γαιροῖ, ταὶς ρας. ἰφιννι πο οὐ, --- οὐ ματι ers 
--- ree ee ee een πὰ ὩΣ ἘΠῚ = 
"τ Στ nemerend κλσυεσυαι; ταν τα κὰν... plvamie norevconanc noon Ws SEES 
en rere σαν ἀνα «οὐ ae ae 
Sen caren es en awe eee ee ee ΤΣ. anes 
ee he Sen eee ἘΞ — να ον - «αὶ = 
oe GS nen, amid a arenes αὶ Bevecerson 
Score a cones nd meager wren) wdainnnes πτηνοῖς 
= SS ee, Sa ene 
aaa ysy Someone “Syiioeronte — τ᾿ Stenecen 
Se Le) ee pee Pemereeneemwenlgeapernme απὸ \ seers 
seen phe τον 2 + eee ceneeanennnneeee ee — on 
a 90 a AS + COMMIT TT ΟΝ oe papipecercoenes 
ee ae παρ epee τος. Renee ΖΞ. <2 ere 
ee en een as ee 
ae a ST eee — = 
ee nen .....ὅὕ.Οϑὕ τὰρο αὶ — wv 
innova — = 
a heer ne Sinn ——— —- Saree 
SS ee eS τσ Ὁ ἘΣ eh parsstoene 
rae ee σ Ἐν ΤΣ on --. - εν 
ποτ αθουνο. πρρυνσαρισι eomtaye ne pe πῆ ν πππτὸς newt 
—ewenen.-9'y secgretunenee rs seville me - 
a βω — — 
ely > ὡς..." Seek) SL = 
SS ———_—_LE——_ ΣΟ τς 
eee 60 ae a ἶρ = : 
a ee Smee — —e ταν ——~ 
amen + os senererenarans Come’ a Se 
ee eee ne poem =~ ΞΞΞ: - 
eee ee ee το meee 
em ee = ΞΞ:-::Ξ:Ξ- 
— mated nee SS 
—— ΤΈΣΣ ΞΕ τ Ξ Sa oa 
»ποτοποφοον.--ααθα--- ας πΘαςς ΡΞ ΘΟΝ 
»».ο- τοϑλνῖν.- τ να φίν αι αρρο ον οι eg σπππαστσιν ας τα 
owe Ξ Ξ:.- -- er 
Sucenanty-s30q' geen snp ausupercighepiany-vabermemaseneerety. mere teat 
Sean eels mane ---- παροὺ ον κὶς τὰ  aaeseraenepentinnanneen τς 
coreeman —-- a ἊΝ 
μορον τοι.“ όαα-- αν αλζι, οἱ ee ean 
Sena ts eee es Oe : nn ee aero 
—- a Ae en y= en nos 
Seevorteeipn +) me rae" Sana : nS oes 
snonwemtee “elt suman. 3) ------.---- δον, — - ΞΞ-- 
SS en μ eee hs eae 
peeenenn ογα»..- κα αμννλ,ο. ον...» . ὧδ aoe aaa 
δ το σαιύνλνλ, το σον οἴει... -----....β. οὐ goa =, 
Ῥτοτονν ποιον θα. --πταινενελδι,- .-.-.....ὕ. ΡΤ yo — 
Snae py aeecer eine Sane ae - —— - 
2 = 2 eee maneae ereneetny Σ aon 
παρ τὸν Sewanee beeen ——— 
μοοτονσυσοονσος. κὐνστονο κυ σςς, on 
ee re emer sw ieetpes weeny memnernatuavigmemicnceree gsehinemnee 
= SS a λνοτ- 
— ο----- ᾿ρκασο τς τος δος.  ὁπτος pe aan 
re — κεν. mae Sram =~ 


een eae nn eee enon onan gna οτος 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library . 


http://www.archive.org/details/lutheronsacramenOOluth 


4 
ΓΝ 
- 
ΝΣ 
drt 
ἘΠῚ 


Oe 
LUTHER 


THE SACRAMENTS: 


THE DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES 
of 
THE EVANG. LUTHERAN CHURCH, 


BAPTISM 


AND 


THE LORD'S SUPPER: 


CONTAINING A SERMON ON BAPTISM, A LETTER ON ANABAPTISM, AND 


HIS LARGER CONFESSION ON THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


RDRDADVAL σαι 


FRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN: 


DDDDD ODDO OOS ase 


NEWMARKET: 
PUBLISHED BY SOLOMON Ὁ. HENKEL & BRs. 


1853. 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by 
5. Ὁ. HENKEL & BRS., 
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States 
for the Western District of Virginia. 


a ae a ae a eT a a a 


— 


D. W. BENTLEY, PRINTER. 


SS 


PREFACES 


-----.--. 


In the present volume will be found the Distinctive 
Doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran church, on the 
Sacraments. The three articles which compose the 
volume, have been translated from the German of Dr. 
Martin Luther, and they are contained in his entire 
works, published by John G. Walch, at Halle, in 24 
volumes, quarto, from A. D. 1740 to 1750. 

The Sermon on Baptism occurs in volume X., page 
2515-2593 ; the Letter on Anabaptism, in vol. XVIL., 
page 2645-2691; the Dissertation, or Larger Confes- 
ston on the Lord’s Supper, in vol. XX., page 1118- 
1586. j 

The Sermon on Baptism, and the Dissertation on the 
Lord’s Supper, were translated by JosepH SaLyarps, 
Principal of the Newmarket Academy; the Letter on 
Anabaptism, by Rev. Socrates Henxe x; and the whole 
translation has undergone a rigorous and searching col- 
Jation with the original, by the Rev. Amprose Henxen. 

The translator of the Sermon and Dissertation of Lu- 
ther, has deemed it advisable to prepare a short Intro- 
duction, presenting some explanation of the origin and 
nature of the controversy, as well as the motives of the 
present publication. 


NewMarket, Shenandoah, VWa., 


January 24, 1853. 


ἵ ogg iw ν ace 8 ' γὴν" 


$34 mathe a bates it ‘Ube. pattie 


γ Sa 


Ὑδ ΒΗ lords. ἀρνί, ὦ lapitigae ett τή! Aa. Ἢ RW 
whe, eqn donhe easels Ἰϑοπδε θη Τὶ ot aie Tika 
int be ΠΣ oft: ‘gen Syitaldciind toad aah ἢ ΡΩΝ ἜΝ 
whe ed (ἢ gai ins a8. eet. hee ae Dat : τ ᾿ 
ae ὐ Lott 14 ΚΕΝ Ὑ ah, adel, ἀφ, hessleilehony aioe Ἢ 
ἡ ΘῈΣ οὐ OE MT, (Α σφ de βγη 
αὐ ΟΝ ae Ἡθρηλο ἀπ ΑΓ, εὖ ΑΝΝΑ δΕ ne 


SNS a a 
᾿ = εν ee Pee 


"Ἂς 


; > 
ἣν ' ἐν co ay eh! δ Ps GRD. erie) ot. ΗΝ ie ἐ πω dade 


ee ΚῪ Ἂ es tk Ἐπ 6 Hab ay ΩΚα at's Peat are cent: 


a a ΡΑΜΑ τ RANE Ὁ SE aS ne Abe HES tod DEY ae TRS 
ὴ ᾿ ᾿ eee ra ἣν Ν Gr. ce ae oe “5 vc chop 


ik ἴω» 
: - 
a 


eae bye Se ve ᾿ ον ἐν ΤῊΝ πὸ ἃ 
i Ν ς ’ ὶ ; , % {πὲ ἷ ἐλ 3 a ro ' * 
τ ney ΡΥ ft yeasts ΚΠ dup δ Ἢ τ ἠδ᾽ cys pee i ae 
» ; bt 
> ied λέν Δ παν ves | te ἜΤ᾽ iv} ἜΝ ao 19) ROG: & “hx μ' "ἢ ve 
ub ethos ot Ὁ iia seed iT Jaden wah, 1} Why (regiepit't : 


aha ἷ bis Οὐκ ν aki; peers hit ete Ui «ΙΑ: Hib ds π᾿) ΙΝ ; 
é ἀρ Peon. LEA cone Ba Nitta it ἐμ, ράλκ αν ρὲ pee 
an i τς Ἀγ: δὰ χρίει fy. ἘΣ nile ‘eth gl tetuicck: edt ιν γοίδηξ,ς, att 
ὌΝ ie αἰ teil bite ses nhs ey τιον beg oe δ fa 
ch isthel Sra ibe 3 bgt ἊΜ ‘oe ‘nek y bat ἣ ent ΝΟΣ ; 

beng i ie a) 6g, Sap Ls δᾷ +42 ἘΝ figs ἐν 


δε τε 
ὟΣ 


ij ed 
‘aris ist Pepe 


ae 
ey Ney “ὦ Sx 1/7 
XD, Co oe 
ENG fe 


INTRODUCTION. Ὡς ee rr 


τ» εν 


Through a dispensation of grace, no less wonderful than munifi- 
cent, man has become an agent in his own mysterious purification. 
To his lips has been committed the Gospel of peace; to his hands, 
the ministration of the hoiy Sacraments; and, like the Propnets of 
israel, inspirations which he does not comprehend, give eloquence 
to his voice, and he wields spiritual influences which too freguent- 
ly, alas! he but lightly appreciates. Confined no longer to the 
priests of a special people, the sacred mysteries have forsaken the 
Urim and Thammim, have burst the veil of the temple, anc 
come as universal as the waters that cover the earth, or the vege 
tation that adorns her bosom. The Messiah has come. He hus 
exalted human nature from its deep depravity. He has instituted 
@ new system; has established his church, rich as it is tree, and 
universal as it is perfect. He has left his Word in the air, his pu- 
rity in the waters. The Author and the Lord of nature, he has 
sanctified with his ewn flesh and blood, the consecrated prodne- 
tions of the field and the vineyard. ‘My flesh is meat indeed, 
and my blood is drink indeed.”?? His blood has fiewed from the 
cross, his body has reposed in the earth, and the tainted labors of 
his creative hand are purified from the contamination of Satan. 
His baptism was the baptism of nature, the regeneration of terres- 
trial things. Well might he take the bread and the cup, and say 
to his disciples, “This is my body; this is my blood.”? Well 
might he enjoin upon his church the sacred obligation of perpeia- 
ating the mystery, with faith in his name; for he alone could fore- 
see and appreciate the physical and moral renovation, which would 
thus reclaim the future generations of men. 

Such were the views which occupied the thoughts, and engaged 
the meditations of the primitive church; nor did Christianity in the 
days of her youthful purity, denounce the profound contempiations 
of Cyril or Athanasius, of Chrysostom or Eusebius, as the dreams 
of a visionary idealist. Questions infinite in magnitude, from age 
to age, recurred to the mind, and pressed upon the heart of devout 
worshippers.—How could a Divine nature clothe itself in flesh ? 
On what mission came the Son of God from heaven? What eya- 


aN 
fay 
ζ 
pea 
! 


(ἢ 


. 


V1 INTRODUCTION. 


‘tem did he institute? Why does it consist of thtet elements,—the 
Gcosp2l, Baptism, the Eucharist? In what relation do these stand 
to each other? What peculiar office does each subserve in the 
restoration of man from the malignity of the Fall? What need 
had Christ to be baptized? Why did he change water into wine 7 
Why did he select bread and wine for the institution of his Supper 7 
‘hese interrogations, with thousands of similar import, furnished 
a delightful exercise to reason, and imparted vitality to faith. 
Such were the deep interrogations,—after the lapse of a thousard 
years of darkness and ecclesiastical despotism,—which the Greek 
Paulician, in the twelfth century, brought to the marts of Nar- 
bonne and Toulouse, to the banks of the Rhone and Garonne, where 
the beautiful language of Oc was spoken, when he roused the dull 
eredulity of western Europe, and struck the supremacy of the Roman 
hierarchy with its frst terrors. But, appraling to the superstition 
and cupidity of asemi-barbarous age, the power of Rome triumphed, 
and the Albigensian heresy was repressed. Then two generations 
passed away, lulling the immortal mind in the lap of supersti= 
tion, When once again, Uberty and reason dared to struggle 
for the ascendant. The power of the Papacy was now at its height. 
Vrederick II., the ablest of a long list of German Cesars, nobly 
attempted to defend the right of the civil power against the en- 
eroachments of the Roman pontiff. But the vengeance of Rome 
pursued his house to the third generation. Manfred perished on 
the field of battle; Conradin on the scaffold. 


Another century passed by, and the aspect of society was greatly 
improved. Thousands were studying the immortal works of Plate 
and Aristotle, of Cicero and Seneca; the powers of the modern 
langnages were developed the invention of printing had infinitely 
extended the intercourse of minds; an increasing thirst for know1- 
edze and for spiritual freedom, now again revived the same deep 
interrogations, and the crear Rerormartion began, ‘The sp*‘rit of 
Luther glowed with invincible ardor, Melanchthon was learned, 
the Elector of Saxony was faithful, and the supremacy of Rome 
was set at defiance. 

In the history of those conflicting opinions, which agitated the 
Reformers in their struggle for spiritual emancipation, will be 
found the reasons and the apology for all that follows in the pres- 
ent volume. Before the reader of our translation suffers himself to 
take offence at any thought or expression, which he may consider 
harsh or acrimonious, let him recollect the spirit of the age in which 


INTRODUCTION. Vil 


it was uttered, the violence, the momentous interest of the conflict, 
and the fearful necessities of the times. If he feel solicitous to know 
why controversial writings, which have slumbered for ages, are 
now revived, let him reflect that the same deep interrogations are 
again demanding solution in the freedom of our western world; 
at a time, too, when men are but little prepared for such inquities, 
by all the habits, the modes of thought, and the institutions of a 
purcly utilitarian age. For assuredly men seem to have forgotten, 
that the Unseen al 6 is permanent and real, and that Truth herself 
18 a personified ideality. 

In the Sermon, the Letter, and the Dissertation which follow, 
Luther brings under review, and refutes with great ability, vari- 
ous pernicious opinions, respecting the holy Sacraments, enter- 
tained and defended by the Anabaptists, by Carlstadt, Zwinglius, 
and Gicolampadius. From actual comparison we are assured, that 
not a single new argument bas been added to the controversy, by 
the perverse diligence of modern incredul.ty; but on the contrary, 
that many of the most formidable objections of Gcolampadius and 
the Swiss reformer, have either been entirely overlooked, or left un= 
appreciated. Inthe writings of more recent theologians, who have 
attempted to revive and defend-these opinions, we find nothing 
but a repetition of the same fallacies, and even the very same re- 
ferences to parallel passages. We tind them indulging the same 
convenient latitude in the interpretation of Scripture, and exhibit- 
ing the same efforts to escape the pressure of the literal sense, 
amid the intricate mazes of figure and allegory. 


The Sermon and the Letter are directed principally against the 
Anabaptists, a fanatical sect of reformers, who contended, that 
Baptism should be administered to adults only—not by sprinkling, 
but by dipping. They even asserted that the office of magistrate 
is unnecessary; that all distinctions of birth or rank ought to be 
abolished; that a community of goods should be established; and 
that the disciple of Christ may lawfully marry as many wives as 
he thinks proper. Their first prophet, Mtinzcr, suffered ona scaf- 
fold at Mulhousen, in 1525. Some time after, a baker of Harlem, 
named John Matthias, and a journeyman tailor, generally called 
John of Leyden, assembling their associates, expelled the inhabi- 
tants of Munster, and established a singular kind of republic, over 
which they ruled with absolute authority, calling the place Mount 
Zion. The bishop of Munster collected a considerable army, and 
invested Munster. Matthias with his associates sallied out of the 


Vill INTRODUCTION. 


town, ferced the bishop’s camp, and returned, loaded with spoil and 
glory. Elated by this success, and thinking nothing impossible to 
the favorites of heaven, with no more than thirty of his followers, 
he went out again to meet the enemy, boasting that, like Gideon, 
he would smite the hosts of the ungodly with a handful of men. 
The prophet with his thirty attendants was slain. The Anabap- 
tists, however, far from despairing, rallied under John of Leyden, 
their other light. Assuming the title of king, in a very short time 
this enthusiast took no less than’ fourteen wives. In this his 
brethren followed his example. The city was taken some time 
after by surprise, most of the Anabaptists were slain, and their 
king was made prisoner and put to death. 

The unfortunate controversy, which gave occasion to the Dis- 
sertation on the Loerd’s Supper, is said to have originated with An- 
drew Bodenstein, better known under the appellation of Carlstadt, 
the place of his nativity. In 1501, this man came to Wittemburg, 
where, after remaining till the year 1510, he became professor Οἱ 
philosophy. After this he seems to have fallen into various and pe:+ 
plexing controversies. Perhaps in consequence of this he left Wit- 
temburg, and in 1524 was made pastorof Orlamtnde. Euthereagain 
he awakened the spirit of controversy, and excited great asperity of 
feeling, throwing the images out of the churches, filling the schools 
with confusion, and publishing several treatises, in which he ad- 
vised all the young to relinguish their studies. Here, too, his er- 
roneous opinions in relation to the Eucharist were first made pub- 
lic. The Elector ef Saxony ordered him to leave the country. 
After residing some time at Strasburg and Basel, through the in- 
tercession of Luther, he was suffered to return to Saxony. On his 
way he stopped at Kemburg, where assuming the dress of a far- 
mer, he hauled wood to town, and called himself “neighbor An- 
drew.’? He remained here till 1528, when he left secretly, and 
returned to Strasburg. Failing of success, he retired into Switzer- 
land, and in 1530 was made professor of theology at Zurich. From 
this time up to his death in 1513, he created no disturbance. 


Zwinglius at the time was canon of Zurich, a man of extensive 
learning, uncommon sagacity, and heroic intrepidity of spirit. On 
the doctrine of the real presence, his opinica at first coincided 
with that of Luther; but a treatise by Cornelius Honnius, a na- 
tive of Holland, falling in his way, effected an entire change in his 
views on this subject. For a long time, however, he withheld 
from the public any declaration of his recent convictions. In 


INFRODUCTION. IX 


1525 he published at Zurich his Commentary on the True and the 
False Religion, addressed to Francis I., king of France ; and we are 
told by Hospinianus, in the second part of his History of the Sacra- 
ments, that Zwinglius wrote this commentary, not with a view 
to provoke Luther into a controversy, but merely to refute the 
papistical doctrine of transubstantiation. 


Nor had Gcolampadius acquired less distinction by his learning 
and piety, and by his scrupulous fidelity to the principles of the 
Reformation. Ina work which he published in quarto, A. D. 1521, 
he makes the following declaration: “We believe simply and with- 
out the least hesitancy, that the true body is present, and contained 
under the bread; the blood, under the wine.” Yet this same ex- 
cellent man, in a sermon delivered at Basel some years afterwards, 
and published in Latin, professes himself a convert to the figura- 
tive interpretation of Carlstadt and Zwinglius. In reference to 
this portion of his sermon, the learned Erasmus observes in one of 
his letters: “9 A new opinion has lately been advanced,—that there 
is nothing in the Eucharist except bread and wine. I find this 
opinion in a sermon of John Gicolampadius; and he has fortified it 
by arguments and testimonies, not only numerous and difficult to 
be refuted, but such as would seem capable of deceiving the very 
elect.”? It is easy to perceive here, that this eminent linguist co= 
incided with Luther on this subject; though a lengthy controversy 
afterwards sprung up between them, in quite a different depart- 
ment of theology. 

Such were the leading divines of the age, who elicited the tri- 
umphant refutation compasing the present volume. Nothing con- 
firms more strongly the remark of Macauley, that ‘* Divinity is 
- not a progressive science,”’ than the history of this controversy. 
Upwards of three centuries have passed away, and yet in the per- 
verse opposition which is 5111] maintained against the literal inter- 
pretation of the propositions, “This is my body,” “ This is my 
blood,”’ the very same tropes and figures are still resorted to,—the 
metaphor, the metonomy, the synecdoche, and even the figure allo- 
Osts, or more properly alloiesis,—and precisely the same misappli- 
cations made of every one of them. In the following pages, the 
reader will find these misapplications detected and exposed with 
the skill of a master. We should fail in attempting to express our 
astonishment, that men even of that age as well as of the present; 
men of high natural endowments, of refined culture, and profoundly 
skilled in logical and philological principles, should continue to 


Χ INTRODUCTION. 


outrage every principle of language in their reasonings on this sub- 
ject. Let any one of these men, we fear not to assert it, have ta- 
ken under his consideration an indefinite number of propositions 
from the common stock of literature, and he would uniformly have 
pointed out each of these figures, whenever they occurred, with 
perfect ease and accuracy. Indeed such an exercise is found to be 
a pleasant amusement to mere tyros of ordinary capacity. But 
behold the ridiculous contradictions and perplexities, when men 
suffer themselves to be dazzled by a favorite theory, and persist m 
supporting that theory at the expense of reason and science! When- 
ever a word ἐς figurative, a boy can detect the figure with facility ; 
but it will puzzle a learned doctor to detect a figure where there is 
none. We entreat the reader to take one connected view of the 
erroneous interpretations which Carlstadt, Zwinglius, and Cco- 
lampadius have made on these figures, bearing in mind that the 
same errors are committed by certain divines and commenta- 
tors at the present day. In the proposition, “1 am the vine,” one 
says the metaphor is in the verb am, for which he proposes repre- 
sents or signifies as its literal equivalent. Now take “1 represent 
the vine” in its Zéteral sense, and the idea is absurd. The propo- 
sition then means, “1 exhibit the vine,”? or, “41 show the vine.”’ 
Take “I signify the vine” in its Ziteral sense, and the proposition 
means, “1 make known the vine,” or, “41 make a token or sign 
of the vine.”’ It is plain, then, that these words,—vrepresents and 
signi fies,—must not be taken in their Z’tzral sense, if the proposition 
is to convey the idea intended. They must, in truth, be taken in 
a figurative sense. Hence instead of one being removed, a meta- 
phor has been introduced into the proposition. Suppose a similar 
proposition be taken from our common literature, and not only a 
doctor of Divinity, but many a boy will tell you immediately, that 
the word vize is the metaphor. 


Another, while torturing the proposition, ‘* This is my body,” says 
there is a synecdoche in the word Jody ; that is, the s¢gu is put for 
the thing signified. ‘To restore the literal sense, he proposes sign 
of body, instead of body. But if body is a synecdoche, zt must itself 
be the sign of the literal word or words. How, now, can ody be the 
sign of the sign of body? Junius has been denominated a xomizis 
wmbra ; the penumbra is the shadow of a shade; but a sign of the 
sign of body is assuredly the strangest reduplication of all. We 
should rather be persuaded, that sign of body is actually the sign 
af body, and lody the thing signified; so that instead of removing 


INTRODUCTION. ΧΙ 


the synecdoche, CEcolampadius has in reality forced one into the 
proposition. 

Then again the reader will find them advancing upon a sort of 
terra incognita, the regions of allotosis, by which they wish to con- 
vey the idea, that Christ, in using the word lody, really meant his 
soul,—having put the heman for the divine nature. Now Aristo- 
tle, in presenting a distinction between yeveous and αλλοιοσις, gives 
us an express definition of the latter: ‘* Alloiosis takes place when 
the subject remains the same, while there is a change in its pas- 
sions. As, for example, the body is healthy, and again is sick, yet 
remains the same body.’’? According to this, all/ovosts means a 
change of condition or property, without a change of essence. But 
these men reverse this definition precisely, and deduce a figure 
which does not exist in any language. Indeed we may venture 
the opinion, that allovosts in its true sense, precisely expresses 
Luther’s idea of the Eucharist, and actually converts the real 
propositions,—* This is my body,’’ “This is my blood,’’—into 
essential proposit ons. 


All these absurd perplexities and fallacious interpretations, Lu- 
ther unfolds and scatters to the winds, with admirable dexterity ; 
sometimes in a tone of pious solemnity, accompanied with senti- 
ments of deep and thrilling significance; sometimes with a playful 
levity of fancy, amusing himself with the bursting bubbles of 
learned doctors. Guided by the native vigor of a comprehensive 
genius, yet restrained and awed at every step by the reverence 
which he always felt for whatever he read in the Word of God, 
this great man in all his reasonings will generally be seen far in 
advance of his age. Possessing a more profound penetration into 
the nature of things, a more acute and lively perception of the na- 
tural force of words, than all his learned cotemporaries together, 
his views of physical substance and property, have ever since been 
deriving stronger and still stronger confirmation, from the best phil- 
osophers of subsequent ages. Reid, Stewart, Brown, Harris, 
Cousin, and Sir William Hamilton, abound with suggestions im re- 
lation to the physical constitution of things, and the laws of mental 
perception, which are the very thoughts of Luther, clothed in the 
technicalities of modern science. And to this we may add, with- 
out fear of extravagance, that neither Longinus nor Burke, Seneca 
nor Fowler, can convey to the youthful mind a more precise and 
accurate conception of figurative language, than the disquisitions 
which will be found in the present volume. 


χιὶ INTRODUCTION. 


Always adhering with reverent tenacity to the authority of 
Scripture, Luther has portrayed with faithful perspicuity, as it 
seems to us, that sublime and mysterious ritual which the Re- 
deemer instituted for his church. According to this, the zzstru- 
ments or means by which Divine grace is implanted and matured 
in the human soul, are three: the Gospel, Baptism, and the Eucha- 
tists The Gospel comprises tiree elements: the Word, the Preach- 
ex, and the Command to preach. Baptism, in like manner, com- 
prises three elements: the Word, the Water, and the Command to 
baptize. And finally, the Eucharist derives its efficacy from three 
elements: the Bread and Wine, the Words of the Institution, and 
the Command to cbserve it as a Sacrament. 

Here, then, is a system which exhibits in miniature the light of 
all revelation, as to the external manifestations of the soul’s pro- 
gress in grace; a system which has been very careful in diserimi- 
nating between causes and effects; which regards the Great Origi- 
nal Spirit, as an active, intelligent Power, the universe as a mani- 
festation of that. Power; which beholds the divine nature of Christ, 
distinct and infinite, reaching down to the depths of depraved hu- 
manity, and exalting it to the throne of God, by a gracious and 
sacramental communication of his own inexhaustible attributes. 
It is a system which demonstrates that bodies possess powers as 
well as properties ; that they can exist in a Jatent as wel] as ina 
sensible state; and that they can, by virtue of these powers, mani- 
fest their presence in vayious places at the same time. Jn the hu- 
man mind, a mighty conflict is ever progréssing between the 
rival claims of sensualism and idealism, of mysticism and scepti- 
cism; and amid the ferment a residuum of truth, perhaps equally 
indebted to the four, will still perpetuate, from age to age, the 
harmony of intellectual, moral, and voluntary powers. Our con- 
victions are not easily to be shaken, that this truth will always be 
found to accord with the declarations of Holy Writ, and the doc- 
trines enunciated inthe following pages. And whenever faith 
embraces the material agencies of the Word, the Water, the Bread 
and Wine, as the only authorized channels of divine communion, 
in humble silence it will partake of the szbstance for the sake of 
the property, and perceive only in the inmost recesses of the soul, 
the sweetness and power of their consanguinity. ᾿ 


= 
> “, 
. εἶν 
" ᾿ ν᾽ 
ν ἧς — 
ἂν, ' "> 
β ΜΕΝ 
~ ᾿ς 
ἷ , 
~-g « 
΄ 
ω © 
“Ξ 


SERMON 


ON 


HOLY BAPTISM, 


BY 


DR. MARTIN LUTHER, 


ἘΝ THE GOSPEL FOR THE FESTIVAL COMMEMORATIVE OF TEE LORD'S 
MANIFESTATION.—MATT. 3, 13-17. 


Written ia the year 1535. 


ἂ :." 


ENS Nae 


ον 


ST ee ἔν κά Τα, 6. Ὁ 


“GRA: ate cag nian Mee eae 
᾿ εν »" ἃ te Ἷ 


τον Μὴ ae ΤῊ ᾿ tee £ & ae 


adda 


; iil ενῆον κα ac a αν il 


me 2 


ΗΝ ty} <)> 2 4, 
eS tae, Ἢ 
ἃ “3: (JS > 
036, > 


DR. LUTHER’S PREFACE; - tz 
» "vy ὃν 

If I reflect how unpleasant I have been rendering 
myselt to th’s charming, this devoted spouse of the 
devil, who in German is called die Welt, (the world,) 
well indeed might I wish to relinquish my preaching and 
writing, and rather desire that my name be forgotten or 
never thought of, than ever to proceed any further, or to 
write or preach any more. On my own part this would 
be attended with little difficulty. But since this pleasing 
bridegroom and his lovely bride desire to be implicitly 
reverenced, and to devour my Lord Jesus Christ, I must 
demean myself as if I were alarmed, and as if Christ, my 
Lord, were dead and had gone to corruption fifteen 
hundred years ago; yet 1 must act not as if my alarm 
were unto death, but 1 must show that the death of 
Christ, my Lord, is not injurious to his life. For moder- 
ation, I hear it said, is good in every thing: and I know 
that Christ, my Lord, is not entirely extinct, nor am 1 
so dispirited. I have accordingly proposed to myself to 
publish these sermons of mine in honor to the holy insti- 
tion of Baptism, which even in our time has to encounter 
many adversaries, and the devil with his world is fear- 
fully enraged against it. 

2. There again are the Anabaptists, still raging con- 
tinually with the old antichristian Archanabaptists, who, 
through their own works have baptized and still bap- 
tize themselves. Here too, in the third place, the Epi- 
cureans are intruding, to baptize in their singular mode, 
so perfectly insignificant. And this blessed, this hoiy 


4 PREFACE. 
baptism is so violently assailed on all sides, that it is 
necessary for us to provide for and to guard it well. 

3. Yet, although it may very possibly not escape 
without injury, EF still hope that Christ Jesus, apparently 
so peor and impotent, will maintain the field against the 
devil and all his mighty, his learned men and councils. 
Whoever will be a true member of this rejected, glori- 
ous king, who shall abide forever, let him fervently 
implore assistance; let him pray that the period of his 
“justice and the visitation of his kingdom, may soon 
eome. ‘fo him, as to our righteous, eternal God and 
Lord, with the Father and Holy Ghost, be everlasting 
gratitude and praise. Amen. 


SERMON 


ΟΑ 


HOLY BAPTISM, 


BY 
DR. MARTIN LUTHER, 


ON THE GOSPEL FOR THE FESTIVAL COMMEMORATIVE OF ΤῊΝ BORD'S 
MANIFESTATION.—MATT. 3, 13-17. 


Written in the year 1535. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING To MATT. 3, 13-I7. 

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto 
Jahn to be baptized of him. But John forbade him. 
saying, “ [have need to be baptized of thee, and comest 
thou tome?” And Jesus answering said unto him, 
“ Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to 
fulfil all righteousness.” Then he suffered him. 
Jind Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight 
way out of the water; and lo! the heavens were 


opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God de- 


scending like a dove and lighting upon him ; and lo! 
a voice from heaven saying, ““ Thists my beloved Son 
in whom I am well pleased.”’ 


1. Among the chief Festivals of Christ the Lord, 
there is this one also which is called, from the Greek, 
Epiphania Domini, the manifestation or revelation of 


0 BAPTISM. 


the Lord. And it has been thus named and instituted 
by the ancient holy Fathers for three reasons, namely, 
that during this Festival we may commemorate, in the 
first place, that Christ was manifested by means of a 
star to the heathens from the east, whom we call Magi, 
Matt.2,2. Secondly, that he performed his first mira- 
cle when he changed water into wine at the wedding in 
Cana, and revealed his divinity to his disciples, John 2, 
il. And thirdly, that he was baptized by John in Jor- 
dan, and a glorious revelation from heaven appeared 
above him, Matt. 3, 16,17. And doubtless a particu- 
iar time in the year has not without reason been ap- 
pointed throughout the Christian world, for the purpose 
of preaching about this highly venerable sacrament of 
holy baptism, in order that it meht be well understood 


I by Christians, as their most ex- 


aad properly honored 
alted treasure upon earth, in which their salvation and 
paring consist. It is reasonable that this Festival 
should have this eminent name, from the baptism of 
Christ; and hence this sermon shal! treat especially ef 
holy baptism. 

2. For indeed it 1s not only reasonable and night, 
but highly necessary too, that we in a Christian ecm- 
munity discourse apon this holy sacrament, and instruct 
the people thoroughly, that they may observe their bap- 
tism, so dear to them, not with so sheht an interest as 
hitherto, alas! because no one has preached or taught 
any thing concerning it ; on account of which baptism ts 
scarcely regarded at all, but almost entirely neglected and 
forgotten, and we have set up in its stead our human 
contrivances and ordinances, wrought out by human in- 
venuity. To such an extremity have matters arrived, 


that a loathsome monk’s cow! has become more highly 


BAPTISM. 7 


εἰ 


valued and esteemed than holy baptism. Such a state -. 


of things never would have appeared, and doubtless 
every description of crime and error would haye been 
effectually restricted, had we presented and inculcated 
their baptism in a proper manner atnong Christians. 

3. But the wretched spirit of evil has so far re- 
dressed the anguish of his heart, as to remove the righ- 
teous, pure doctrine from the pulpit, and substitute his 
own lies and deceptions. Such has always been the 
fate of the word and work of God in the world, that 
whatever he declares and does, must pass as nothing; 
but whatever the devil declares and does, is preserved 
and esteemed as some invaluable possession. ‘This 
most assuredly tends to counteract the blessed Lord 
in all his words and works. Wherefore the blessecl 
God finds it extremely necessary that we highly extol 
his word and work, and elucidate them in the best man- 
ner before Christians, in order that they may learn to 
regard both his word and his work as great and glori- 
ous, and that they may not judge according to the opin- 
ions and delusions of the world. 

4, For it is very true that this word and work 
make an appearance extremely humble and repulsive, 
because they do not come, they are not paraded hither 
with great pomp and princely pride. But if they were 
bedect with gold, with pearls, with velvet and silk, 
or would cause streams of gold and silver to flow, or 
were performed by the great, the mighty, by people 
vf high learning, by lords and princes, then would 
this word and work too be in so high repute and honor, 
that all the world would run, and sing and speak about 
them. . But now, because they are so very insignificant, 
and administered without any ostentation, only by means 


8 | BAPTISM. «ὦ 


as 


of one little human mouth and hand, and with so common 
a sign as water, baptism itself must remain unobserved 
and rejected. 

5. For the world is neither einen nor able to em- 
brace any thing which does not Soin rte In’ some 
degree to open the eye and the mouth. “Ὁ what 
should that import,” say they, ‘‘ that we dip a little 
child into water, or sprinkle it with a handful of 
water? What is that more than other water, with 
which we wash the feet?’ But it might be of some mo- 
ment, if a priest would advance hither, with expensive 
malmsey, or balsam, a drop of which would cost one 
hundred guilders; or if a great prince and bishop 
should baptize, with immense noise and clamor, as 
when they baptize their bells. But since this splendor 
and display are not employed, and God applies exter- 
nally nothing more than a handful of water in its admin- 
istration, he must also suffer it to be rejected by the 
world. For men will have their eyes and ears filled 
immediately, or else they will attach no importance to it. 

6. And he is even served right too, according to 
their opinion. ‘For how does it happen,” say they, 
‘that he acts so strangely in reference to this matter, 
and does not arrange it in a different manner, if he will 
have it highly honored and esteemed as something di- 
vine? If he is so great, so mighty, intelligent,. and 
wise, he should have constituted this also very differ- 
ently.” But he does this even for this reason,—that 
he may reduce the world in its wisdom to foolishness ; 
and because they wish to criticise and censure the words 
and works of God, so that they can admit him to be 
neither right nor good in any thing, he will give the 
world enough of it. And by no means less effectually 


᾿,, BAPTISM. | 9 
ΓΙ r 
through this humble, unobtrusive word, does he execute 
a work within his Christians which the world can never 
understand nor attain. And here again he serves it 
right, since it will reject baptism for the want of 
display, and will neither hear nor see that, by way of 
punishment to its obstinate malignity, it robs itself 
of exalted, divine enjoyment, and is allured by the 
devil into every sort of error and crime, though un- 
der the broad splendor of a godly name. 

7. We perceive how it has happened to the blessed 
word and sacraments, and, by our own experience of 
injuries which have occurred in the Christian world, we 
learn and must still daily await this danger, especially be- 
eause the infamous faction of Anabaptists is so prevalent 
every where already, by which the devil will again darken 
and extinguish the true doctrine, after it has been re- 
stored and purified by the grace of God, so that it kin- 
dles and shines a little. So much the more, then, in 
opposition to this, should we honor our blessed baptism; 
we should praise and elucidate it as much as possible, 
and the more resolutely determine to preach concerning 
it. Wherefore we desire to discourse of it yet once 
more, so far as God may vouchsafe his grace, bringing 
proper instruction for the unsuspecting, by which it can 
be fully comprehended, and a clear distinction drawn, 
which may enable him to determine every erroneous 
doctrine which may arise in opposition. And first let us 
speak of baptism in itself,—explaining the nature of 
it; and then of its benefits and effects. 


THE FIRST PART. 


8. We divide Baptism into three distinct parts, 
which are the Water, the Word, and the Command or 


10 BAPTISM. 


Order of God. Thus, we must not only regard the 
water, like other water, but the word also, which is the 
word of God, in or with the water; and thirdly, the 
will and power of God, or his command and institution. 
These are the parts which belong to the entire nature, 
and to a proper definition of baptism. And they should 
be viewed in immediate connection with each other, and 
not be severed and separated, since in union with each 
other they constitute a correct baptism. 

9. For in order that it may be, and be called a sa- 
crament, it is necessary first of all that some external, 
tangible sign or substance be employed, through which 
God deals visibly with us, so that we may be assured of 
his operation. For without some external sign or medi- 
um, God will not operate upon us, merely by a deeply se- 
cret inspiration, or a peculiar divine revelation. But the 
exterual work and sign will effect and accomplish nothing 
at all, if his word is not added, through which this sign 
becomes mighty, and we perceive what God is ac- 
complishing within us by this sign. But the divine 
command also must be united to both these, in order 
that we may become assured of his will and work in 
this sign and word. These three parts, accordingly, I 
must carefully discriminate. For in opposition to these, 
three kinds of teachers or masters are found, all of 
whom pervert and mutilate the ordinance of baptism. 

10. In the first place, those are as rude as cattle and 
swine, who can view it merely as water, and can say 
no more than ““ Water is water, and remains water.” 
For such a being is in no respect better than the cattle 
‘or swine,—let him be a heathen, a Turk, some factious 
spirit, or the clumsy animal that carries the Pope. And 
in reference to the understanding of a beast, this would be 


, 


BAPTISM: 11] 


Ψ΄ 


correctly asserted. For a tow can know nothing more 
about it than as she sees, namely water; and whoever 
does not know the word of God, should not speak 
otherwise than as a horse or an ass: as the Scripture 
styles them, Psalm 32, 9. 

11. Now, such are our infamous factions of Anabap- 
tists, servants of the devil, who are perpetually running 
about the country and preaching against us, with ex- 
alted intellect representing us and all Christians as 
wicked, contending that we are grossly ignorant, and that 
we intend by means of water to be saved. And they are 
indeed very learned masters, and exceedingly eminent 
Spirits, who teach us this original, this lofty science, that 
water is water. Whocould have known or thought such 
a thing, if these most luminous doctors had not come, 
unless he had inquired from a child seven years old, or 
gone to school a session with the oxen and cows, or to 
swimming with the swine? Yet they are such block- 
heads and dolts, as to allege nothing else against us but, 
‘water is water,” and then they advance their dreamy, 
visionary fancies. And is it not surprising; since they 


_ pursue this matter so high, and so shamefully reject 


water baptism, that they do not observe their own doc- 
trine, and abolish baptism entirely? For indeed they still 
baptize themselves and others over again, and contradict 
themselves with every act. For if they suffer our bap- 
tism, for which we have the word and command of God, 
to pass as nothing, their own baptism, which they them- 
selves regard as mere water, must effect very little in- 
deed. 

12. But this is a delusion of the miserable spirit, 
(a rude, awkward devil, however,) who mocks and 
bewilders the people with this continual bawling and 


19 BAPTISM. 


clamor: “Can you not see that water is water? 
What! should this water, which the cow also drinks, 
benefit souls and wash away sins?” In this way the 
mouth of the uninstructed multitude is opened, and 
they immediately join in and exclaim, ‘“ This is indeed 
very true! Aye, how has the devil infatuated us, that 
we have not seen and observed this.”? This they call 
a rich and well constituted doctrine, and the lofty sci- 
ence of the spirit, if they can say only so much as 
‘Water is water.” And very probably the poor peo 
ple will be betrayed by all this loquacity, because with 
many plausible words and great clamor, they contend, 
they insist that we teach that water, merely as water, 
cleanses the soul. ‘‘O beloved,’ say they, ‘do not 
believe this at all; for here you yourself can see how 
they mislead you, and persuade you to put ΜῊΝ trust in 
mere water as in a mere substance.” 

13. But these may be called desperate traitors and 

malignant beings, who knowingly mutilate the sacra- 
ment of baptism, divide and sever the two best elements 
of it, namely, the word and command of God, and leave 
us nothing but the empty shell or husk; they will nei- 
ther hear nor see, how strongly we have always insisted 
upon these two memorable parts, in immediate connec- 
tion with water, and then with a mere single part they 
rise against us, and urge this discovery as an evidence of 
remarkable wisdom and intelligence. Beloved, I would 
be as wise and learned too, yes, every peasant at his 
plough without any art would be as wise, if it were wise 
to sever witha peculiar malignity, and separate from each 
other, what belongs together and constitutes one being. 
For who cannot say as follows: ‘ How should Christ be 
able to relieve me from sin and death, and the power of 


* 


ia BAPTISM. 13 


, 


the devil? Dost thou not say he is a man, like another 
man? again, why should I be obedient and obsequious to 
my father, my lord, and my prince? In what are they 
different from myself?”? &c. But such reasoning is 
not that of a Christian, nor of any pious man, but of 
some desperate, malignant being, who wilfully separates 
what belongs to the whole person; as, Christ is both 
truly man, and truly God; and father and mother, or 
prince, are not only ordinary persons, like any other, 
but peculiar persons who discharge a particular office, 
according to the word and command ot God. Hence 
they sustain another relation and name also, and hence 
are not merely called John or Clara, but father and 
mother. . 

14. Even thus does this faction act in reference to the 
highly venerable sacrament of baptism, if they regard only 
the water, as if there were no word or ordinance of God 
connected with it. And they act in every respect, if 1 
may offer a rude example, just as if you would see the 
elector of Saxony coming hither in a black coat which 
you had seen some time before in the shop of a tailor, 
who was beating it and knocking off the dust, and now 
you also would strike and beat it, saymg at the same 
time, confidently, “Ὁ what 15 1t more than cloth, like 
any other cloth!’ Soon would you perceive what you 
had been doing, as he would immediately take you hy 
the head, and in return smite your tatters soundly. and 
very probably knock your buttons off besides, for a mis- 
chievous traitor against so princely a personage; and it 
would be of no service that you should loudly exclaim, 
“J did not strike the prince, but the cloth.”?. For you 
would have to hear in reply, “ Yes, it is cloth indeed, 
like other cloth, but do you not perceive that the prince 


14 BAPTISM. 


is in 1} Here it is no longer a mean, insignificant 
garment or cloth, but both a coat and person together ; 
yes, a noble, princely coat, since it is worn and honored 
by a princely personage. 

15. Iam obliged to represent this matter in so rude 
a way, in order that it may be seen and apprehended 
what shameless spirits those are who sever and separate 
the word from the water, till nothing but water is re- 
garded in baptism, which is in consequence abused and 
calumniated in a manner fearful even to be heard. And 
they presume that they are performing an immense ser- 
vice to God, if they can most shamefully pervert and 
destroy it. But how will they stand the test, when 
God at some time says to them, ‘ Dost thou hear? 
Why hast thou so cruelly calumniated my beloved bap- 
tism, and even dared to call it a dog’s bath ; concerning 
which I myself have declared that no one shall consider 
it as mere water, but a peculiar water of my own, that 
is, of God’s. For my word and command consist really 
near and in this water. For it stands written: ‘Go 
ye, therefore, and baptize all nations in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.?. From 
this shalt thou really behold what kind of person this 
water hath clothed, which exists by and in it, viz: the 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : 
so that it is called the water of holy majesty, and must 
no more be considered such water as the cow drinks.” 
For God, most assuredly, has not given this water of his, 
in which his name and majesty exist, that the cow should 
drink it, or the swine should wallow in it, since neither 
of these is the creature or the individual which could be 
baptized and consecrated. This they know perfectly well 
themselves, and yet they wantonly and wilfully abuse 


BAPTISM. 12 


and desecrate it. Wherefore they will experience ἃ con- 
demnation the more intolerable. 

16. But we should guard ourselves against them, 
study it well, and be determined on that account that 
we will not suffer ourselves to abuse and separate this 
holy baptism in such a manner, and regard it only as per- 
formed by mere ordinary water. For we know perfectly 
well, that if it is thus severed, water is no baptism, as 
with fhem it really is not, since, according to their doc- 
trine, they regard it as mere water, and baptize without 
the word and command. But on the contrary we say, 
because it is associated with the word of God, it can 
and should no more be called mere water, and it is of 
no consequence to say, as they do, ‘‘ water is water.”’ 
For it is not called baptism because it is water, but be- 
cause it possesses the word and command of God,—the 
two parts which sever and divide this water from all 
other water, and constitute out of it a baptism or holy 
sacrament, as we shall hear more fully hereafter. This 
is now, in reference to this sacrament, the first error of 
those who regard only this single part, viz: mere water, 
and sever and separate the best part from it, so that 
with them it must be nothing at all but an empty shell. 

17. Then there are others, who, by the blessing 
of God, are not so numerous, and are not all so 
debased, but who still do not properly view the charac- 
ter of baptism; admitting so much, however, that the 
water and the word belong together, and that otherwise 
there can be no baptism; and a passage from Augustine 
is produced, ““ Let the word be added to the element, and 
it becomes a sacrament.’ Yet here there is still how- 
ever a deficiency, inasmuch as the third part has been 
omitted, namely, the command and order of God. And. 


LL --.......ἡΣὕΨ 


16 BAPTISM. 


some pretend that it is quite sufficient, that the word 
enly be spoken, in the same manner-as a person would 
pronounce a blessing upon any creature ἢ and it 15 main- 
tained in support of this opinion, that by means of this 
address, or by virtue of the word itself, some peculiar 
benefit results from baptism and renders it a sacrament. 
fven this is still a barbarous doctrine, to which indeed 
the Papists strongly adhere, and can see no farther. 
18. But some, although they perceive the tw6 parts 
perfectly well, yet fail in respect to the third, and 
desiring to be very acute, they attach a sort of corollary 
upon it. For they see very distinctly that it is not 
sufficient to constitute baptism, for us to employ water 
alone, and pronounce the word over it. For this rea- 
son they say, one thing still must be added, namely, 
faith, wishing to support this opmion from a passage in 
Mark 16, 16, “‘ He that believeth and is baptized, sha}! 
be saved,’? &c. And here again they adduce a passage 
irom St. Augustine, which stands near the preceding : 
‘* This sacrament is constituted of water and the word, 
not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” 
But this also is not properly expressed; for they pre- 
sume, from a misunderstanding cf this passage, that the 
word and the water constitute a sacrament, so far as 
they who receive it have faith; and they found bap- 
tism itself not upon the ordinance of God, but upon 
men, as if the word with the water not being suf- 
ficiently powerfal to constitute baptism, our faith must 
be superadded; and in this manner must the word 
and work of God receive their power and influence 
from us. | 
19. This too is a low, degrading error, though in a 
particular part it is better than the former, (as it does 


BAPTISM. 17 


not calumniate the sacrament of baptism, by viewing it 
merely as water.) This error, both in times past and at 
the present, has been widely diffused. Hence arises that 
extensive, perplexed controversy concerning the bap- 


‘tism of children. It first gave origin to the Anabap- 


tists, and furnishes the strongest foundation on which 
that faction support themselves: as they say, “ You 
were baptized when you still were a child, and had not 
believed, wherefore your baptism is useless,’ &c. This 
is precisely as much as to say,—if you do not believe, 
the word and sacrament of God are of no consequence ; 
but if you believe, they are of great importance. | Conse- 
quently, he only receives true baptism, who possesses 
faith; but he who does not believe, receives nothing 
more than water, and 15 not properly baptized. . Conse- 
quently we must baptize you again, if you now begin 
to believe. 

20. Of the same erronecus opinion are those who 
maintain that baptism cannot be effectual, if it be ad- 
ministered by heretics or unbelievers. In which error 
were formerly very eminent individuals, as the holy 
martyr, St. Cyprian. For a great deal of contro- 
versy arose on this subject, because extensive heresy 
and division prevailed in the Christian community, and 
so many were baptized by heretics that it was reason- 
ably inquired, whether such baptism should -be valid. 
So widely and erroneously have they conjectured, even 
St. Cyprian himself, that they have regarded it as an 
improper baptism, and have said, ‘‘ Whoever shall be 
baptized by an evil, unbelieving servant, and especially 
by a heretic, must be baptized again by some other per- 
son ;’’ and in support of this opinion, they have adduced 
and urged the declaration from Sirach 34,4: ‘ What 


ts BAPTISM. 


can be made ‘clean by :him that is unclean?’ and, 
‘‘ What truth can he speak who is himself a liar ?”’ 
Again, Levit. 15, 10: “‘ That becomes unclean which 
the unclean touches.” rom these they wish to infer, 
that since he who administers the sacrament of baptism, 
is unclean and without faith himself, that baptism also 
must be unclean, and the person who shall be thus bap- 
tized, cannot be rendered clean ‘by it; consequently it 
would not be an efficacious baptism, though both 
the water and the word were employed in its ad- 
ministration, because the individual is deficient who 
will have administered this baptism. Behold, this is 
assuming baptism to ourselves, and founding and build- 
‘ing it upon men, and yet this heresy is endued with a 
splendor remarkably dazzling, and, as has been re- 
marked, has bewildered many eminent individuals, and 
drawn the multitude after it. 

21. Opposed to these errors, we should study bap- 
tism from the word of God, in order to comprehend and 
observe it entirely and with accuracy. For all this re- 
sults from the fact, that men do not observe, but sepa- 
rate the third part which belongs to baptism, and which 
night well be called the first, and which is the ordi- 
nance and command of God. For with this design he 
has taken baptism entirely to himself, and permits nei- 
ther yourself nor any man to add to it, in order to make 
it a baptism. I may be the baptizer, and you the bap- 
tized, but it is not on that account a baptism of mine or 
of yours, but of Christ’s. In short, every one can give 
and receive it, when it has already been formed and in- 
stituted; but no one should form or institute it, but 
Christ alone. For this is the purport of his word: 
‘“‘Go ye, therefore, and baptize al] nations in the name 


a 
idl p BAPTISM. 19 


of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 


He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.”’ 
These are not the words which we pronounce in the 
administration of baptism, but they are the words of the 
command which institutes baptism. For the priest or 
servant does not pronounce them, but he who instituted 
baptism, who then said, “Go ye, therefore, and bap- 


tize;”? that is, “Here ye have received my command — 


and ordinance, what I desire and enjoin upon you, that 
you shall baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost; and whoever shall receive this 
word and water together, shall receive a perfect baptism, 
and in addition to this, whoever shall believe, through its 
agency shall be saved.’ Something more 15 requisite 
here, besides the two parts, the word and the water ; 
otherwise it would be utterly insufficient to apply the 
water and to pronounce the words, “I baptize,” &c., 
if we do not distinctly include the command connected 
with it, not even if faith were present. 

22. For indeed before every thing else, we must 
know whence baptism proceeds, or by what means it is 
a baptism, in order that we may be able to answer the 
questions, “ Who has instructed you to administer the 
water and word together? or whence and by what au- 
thority are you certain that this is a holy sacrament?” 
For if it were sufficient with only the two parts, I, or 
any other person, if we please, could make a baptism ; 
indeed make as many sacraments as we chose. For 
I might take a creature, which God has created, any 
one I might please, and pronounce the word of God 
over it, in the same manner as the Papists do, with 
their holy water, their salt, fire, chrism, tapers, 


herbs, bunns, altar, and church consecration, in which 


τ πε OR ne get - 


τι τόπων τας - -- -. ---,.-ς..... -.-«--  κ{.-..-- em en —— 


20 BAPTISM. 


they say, “1 bless or consecrate thee, salt, spice, wax, 
castle, altar, cowl, &c., in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost,” and besides read Psalms and other 


‘prayers over them. Here indeed are the word of God 


and his creature too, in immediate connection, so that we 
might also say cut of St. Augustine, “ Let the word be 
added to the element, and it becomes a sacrament.’? Why 
may not this also prevail and effect as much as baptism? 
Or why do we not make a sacrament out of holy water Ὁ 
and salt, out of every monk’s and nun’s cap, out of the 
lamp of St. Blasius and Agatha, indeed out of every 
blessing and every witchery. ifsome infamous weather- 
witch and diabolical hag blow in the ear of a cow, and 
mutter the name of God and of the saints, in order that 
both the creature or the element, and the word of God, 
may come together, why then is not this a sacrament 
also? because you say that a sacrament consists of the 
two parts, the word and the element. 

23. Answer—Indeed it is true the two parts belong 
to it; but still they are not sufficient by themselves to 
constitute a sacrament,—one thing more belongs to it, 
that we may have the trinity in full, namely, a divine 
injunction and command. If you can establish this, 
that the divine majesty in heaven says, ‘ I have ordered 
and enjoined it,” then these two parts are quite sufh- 
cient and competent to be denominated a sacrament. 
But if not, every thing which we could possibly imagine, 
as I have said, might become a sacrament. For no 
one is so silly that he could not take the word of God 
in his mouth, apply it to some element, and constitute 
something out of it, as the wicked witch and hag, who 
are said to pilfer the milk or exchange the children in the 
cradle. For itisbelievedthat they employ no evil words, 


BAPTISM. 21 


but pure, good, holy words and names, and use the creature 
of Godin connection with these names. Hence weare told 
that thistoo becomes efficient; but the devil assists his ser- 
yantsin their deeds, for he delightsin propagating thisnon- 
sense under the name of God, and thereby deceiving the 
multitude, so that they believe it a holy, righteous thing, 
because nothing but good words are spoken. But accord- 
ing to this third part, it is necessary to inquire here, 
whether God has also commanded that you should grasp 
a hatchet or axe by the handle, or a towel, so that by 
this agency the cow might yield her milk; or that you 
should consecrate palm or spice, and thereby accom- 
plish what you desire. If you can do this, we shall 
holdit also asa divine operation. But though youshould 
conceive a favorable opinion, and should probably say, 
‘* Still it is an excellent institution of God, and it is the 
righteous, holy word and name of God which I employ,” 
it amounts to nothing after all. For it is not a com- 
mand of God, nor obedience to his command, but your 
own presumption, yes, a shameful disobedience, the ser- 
vice and work of Satan. 

* 24. But it would be of some importance, if you could 
show an order or command of God, and say, “1 have 
not myself conceived and chosen these elements, or con- 
structed them by my own ingenuity, but God has com- 
manded me to take this element and word, and thus to 
use them.’”? Just as we can show in baptism, that 
he has given us a command, and enjoined it upon us to 
baptize ; that is, to put the individual in connection with 
the water, and to pronounce the words, ‘In the name 
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 
For neither myself nor any man, have selected this bap- 
tism by water, like the wizard, or the popish consecra- 


.- = - 


98s BAPTISM. 


tor of cake; nor have I conceived the word, nor spoken 
it from my own conception; but I have both the water 
and the word clearly and distinctly designated to me, 
contained in his command and preserved in it. For in 
no matter, however inconsiderable, will he have any 
thing determined upon by us from peculiar preference 
or opinion, or whatever it may be called; and he will 
permit us by no means to confer with him without 
his word and command distinctly, known; much less 
will he suffer it in these sublime matters which are 
peculiarly divine, wherein we may not frame or de- 
sign any thing at all. For this reason he has em- 
braced it completely in his command. And in order 
that we may be certain of this, he himself has secured 
it so completely in his command, has named every part 
so particularly, distinctly expressed what he will con- 
sider as a sign or substance, and prescribed the form 
and the mode according to which the words should be 
uttered, that a person must use exactly such and no 
other sign, these very words and no other. 

25. Precisely, therefore, as it would be of no conse- 
quence for wizards to use the creature of God with the 
word of God, because the third part is not here associated 
at all,—that God himself had given a command to use both 
this creature and this word,—so in this sacrament also, it 
is of no avail, independent of a distinct, definite command, 
to deem it a sacrament or proper baptism. As, if you 
were going to baptize an infant, and pronounce a pater- 
noster or something else from the Scripture over it, this 
would not be a valid baptism; and it is not sufficient 
for you to say, “ Yet the water which belongs to bap- 
tism and the word of God are present ;’’ for it is still 
destitute of the third part, as God has not commanded 


i. BAPTISM, 23 
you to pronounce these words. In the same way too 
should you employ any thing different from the pre- 
scribed and definite creature, and though you should 
pronounce the proper words, “1 baptize thee in the 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” 
you could not be said to baptize, but to juggle, to make 
a mockery of the sacrament, as one who wilfully tran- 
scends the ordinance and command, in which the crea- 
ture is distinctly specified. So too in the sacrament of 
the body and blood of Christ, if the command and in- 
stitution be not observed, it is no sacrament. So, if 
any one should read over the bread and wine on the 
altar, the Ten Commandments, the articles of faith, or 
some passage or Psalm from the Scripture; or else, in- 
stead of the bread and wine, take something different, 
as gold, silver, flesh, oil, or water, though he might use 
the proper words of Christ’s institution, surely this 
would not be the body and blood of Christ, and though 
the word and the element of God be present, yet it 
would be no sacrament. For the ordinance and com- 
mand are not present, in which the bread and wine are 
specified, and the words, “ Take, eat, this is my body,” 
&e., “drink, this is my blood,’ &c., pronounced. In 
a word, you should neither select nor prescribe any 
word or element yourself, nor do or suffer out of your 
own design any thing whatever; but his command and 
ordinance should prescribe to you both the word and 
the element, and you should maintain them entire and 
unchanged. 

26. ‘Take heed, and learn in this manner to compre- 
hend the three parts together. For herein you possess 
all that baptism is in itself and in its natural essence, and 
you can conceive and communicate a correct, complete 


ΑΛ Ὺ ἀξ δι BAPTISM. 


definition of it, if any one shall ask, “ Friend, tell me 
what is baptism ;”” namely, thus :—Baptism is water and 
the word of God, both of them communicated and ordain- 
ed according tohiscommand. For thus has he command- 
ed that we shall apply the substance, that is, water, and 
pronounce the word in his name. Wherefore if these 
both be administered according to his command, it may 
be called, and is undoubtedly, a correct baptism; so 
that these three parts continually remain connected with 
each other, and one exists not without the others, 
as they are bound together like a chain; indeed 
they are embodied together like one link upon an- 
other. 

27. In the same manner as in the holy sacrament of 
the body and blood of Christ, in which itis thus announced : 
Qur Lord, Jesus Christ, took both the bread and the 
cup, blessed them and gave them to his disciples, and 
said, “ Take, eat;’? and again, “ Drink all of you of 
this,”’ &c. Here is also one part, which may be here 
termed the element or creature, which we see and com- 
prehend, namely, bread and wine; afterwards there is 
also the word which he spoke, ‘ This is my body which 
is given for you; this is my blood which is shed for 
you.” But both these parts would still not constitute 
a sacrament for us, in order that we might be able and 
permitted to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. 
Accordingly one part sull belongs to it, which he ex- 
pressly connects with it, and says, “This do,” &c.; 
that is, “1 command, order, and ordain, and hereby 
will have it ordered and ordained, that you shall also 
do this, so often as ye do it, namely, take bread and 
wine, and pronounce my word upon them, and in this 
manner eat my body and blood.” This part bmds both 


BAPTISM. ‘ 25 


the others together, and renders us certain that we have 
the correct sacrament. | 

28. According to this definition and sense of the 
passage, you yourself can proceed farther, and become 
such a master of the subject, that you will know how 
to judge with certainty, and controvert, with ease 
and accuracy, every false doctrine and presumption 
of the factious opponents of baptism. As, the first 
slanderers, who pride themselves particularly ‘in re- 
ference to the first part, and exclaim with loud 
outcries and plausible words, “ What! should a hand 
ful of water, as a substance, benefit the soul, or blot 
cut sins? The Spirit must do this. For think and 
consider yourself; the soul is surely no. corporeal 
thing which we can bathe or wash with water. Con- 
sequently you perceive that they are deceiving and per- 
verting you, by advising you to place your trust, not 
upon God, but upon the creature.” Then they talk 
znd rave a great deal about the spiritual bath of the 
soul. With such arguments they draw the ilhterate 
multitude after them, persuading them almost to be- 
lieve it may be so, and they do not permit themselves 
to investigate it. And yet in its very foundation it is 
nothing more than a false and deceptive vociferation and 
clamor, by which with wicked and perfidious malignity, 
they abuse our blessed baptism, and with conscious and 
wilful force sever the best part from it, cast it fram the 
eyes of men, and then rave about the mere water. 

29. Hence you may reasonably say in opposition to 
those, ‘You malignant spirit of falsehood, you know 
perfectly well yourself that we do not teach concerning 
baptism, as of mere water, but you resort to this pre- 
tence only to injure our ΒΞ ὌΝΟΣ holy sacrament, and 


26 BAPTISM. 


thereby to pervert poor souls. For we have, blessed 
be God, so much sight, perception, and understanding, 
so much taste, indeed, and feeling, that we can see and 
understand what water is, and can say too, ‘ Water is 
water, —which constitutes your loftiest science. But 
Satan, your master, your lying father, has com- 
manded you to preach this concerning baptism,—that 
it is nothing more than water,—and to sever from it 
the principal parts, the word and command of God, 
by which the water is sanctified, and becomes a sacra- 
ment, as if they avail nothing at all; and you act in this 
matter as a wicked and base vilifier and blasphemer of 
the word and work of divine majesty, deceiving the 
people by false arguments, until they understand no more 
of this subject than a brute understands.” 

30. For you must know without thanks to your- 
self or your evil adviser, that Christ himself has 
instituted this baptism, and added his own word or com- 
mand, where he directs us to baptize in the name of 
the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; promis- 
ing moreover, that whoever is thus baptized and be- 
lieves, shall be saved. This you must not remove 
out of sight, and cast away from us, as if it could do 
and avail nothing, and then point us to some Utopia, and 
present your own dreamy mysteries. For, blessed be 
God, we know and teach too, more fully and better than 
they, what the Holy Ghost worksin us. But we will not 
permit him to be torn away from baptism and the Lord’s 
Supper in this manner, and ourselves to be directed instead 
into some obscure corner,—as they gape after the Spirit, 
and seek a secret revelation apart from the word and or- 
dinance of God. For we know that he will work with us 
through the word and sacraments, and by no other means. 


‘BAPTISM. 27 


31. Consequently we need ask no farther after the 
Spirit, if we possess this sacrament of baptism ; because 
we hear from the words and institution of Christ, that 
the name of the Holy Ghost, together with that of the 
Father and of the Son, that is, the whole divine ma- 
jesty, is connected withit. But since the name and word 
of God are employed in this sacrament, you must not re- 
gard it as mere, ordinary water, as if it could effect noth- 
ing more than a water-bath ; but you must consider it as 
water, by which we are washed from sins, and, as the 
Scripture calls it, we must consider it a washing of re- 
generation, by which we are born anew into eternal life. 
Of this we will hear farther hereafter. Let this suffice in 
reply to those who hold baptism as a mere bodily water- 
bath, and regard neither the word nor the divinecommand. 

32. In like manner, from the preceding instruction, 
you can answer those others also, who esteem baptism 
indeed, but still do not regard it correetly as to the 
third part, arranging and establishing it, not upon the 
commandment and ordinance of God, but as some hu- 
man contrivance, upon our own faith and merit ; as if it 
were not sufficient that God has thus ordered and com- 
manded it, but that it must first be confirmed by us, and can- 
not be valid before our faith comes into connection with it. 

33. For in opposition to this, we thus declare :—God 
grant, be my faith as it may, be it strong or weak, 
this contributes nothing at all to, or detracts noth- 
ing at all from, baptism. Indeed, though I never pos- 
sessed any faith, still baptism would be correct and 
perfect ; for it does not depend upon my belief or unbelief, 
but upon the ordinance and institution of God. Just as 
if at this moment some designing Jew should come to 


betray us, and conduct himself as if he wished to become 


28 BAPTISM. 


a Christian, and detnanded baptismm, so that the parson 
or priest would baptize hun in the water before our 
eyes, and pronounce these words: “61 baptize thee in 
the name, and according to the command of God and 
of the Lord Jesus Christ,’’ &c., then would he be really 
and correctly baptized, although perhaps in his heart he 
might respect no part of it, but afterwards openly ridi- 
eule and abuse it. For what is God concerned about 
it, though you probably may not believe, if he has or- 
dained and commanded it? Must his ordinance, then, 
and command be nothing, or be defeated by your unbe- 
lief and abuse? Far different is the case, as Paul as- 
serts, Rom. 3,4: Though all men are liars, yet his 
word and ordinance remain frwe and immovable. If 
you believe and use it properly, well may it be for your- 
self; if you believe not, you receive it to your own 
condemnation. 

1, For, like the other sacrament and ordinances of 
God, we may readily employ baptism to our own detri- 
ment and destruction ; so that while one is saved, another 
is condemned, by the very same baptism; but this does 
not belong to its nature, of which we are now speaking, 
hut to the efficacy and use of baptism. And it is a far 
different thing when we declare what baptism is in itself. 
For, no human act belongs to it, but it is nothing more 
than an element, or substance, and the word of God, 
both instituted by him, and comprehended in his com- 
mand. For, as said above, he has taken it altogether 
upon himself, so that no man has any part to perform 
in constituting it; thus it depends upon him alone as 


upon a sure foundation, and it cannot fail or deceive 
us as men fail and deceive. Accordingly, if this, 


namely, the command of God, be connected with the 


BAPTISM. 29 


two parts, it is then most assuredly a sacrament entirely 
complete, even if it is not properly received or used, 90 
that it cannot attain its due power and operation. Pre- 
cisely as it happens with other ordinances of God, also 
in material substances; as when the blessed sun daily 
arises in the sky and pursues his course, still remaining 
the same sun evermore, he shines and enlightens, as he 
was created and commanded to do, (Gen. 1, 17,) υὐ- 
changed and unretarded, although perhaps some indi- 
vidual may not see nor feel his rays, as he may be blind, 
or the window and shutters may be closed, so that the 
sun cannot enlighten and warm him. In a word, all the 
creatures of God are limited to the range of their own 
sphere and cperations, even if every individual does not 
fill his sphere and accomplish his operations. ‘Thus 
are the holy sacraments, when they are handled and ad- 
ministered according to the command of God, duly eon- 
stituted and perfect according to their nature and the 
salutary work of God; but if they do not contribute a 
blessing to every man, it is not the fault of the sacraments, 
but of him who does not use them in such a manner as 
to become partaker of their eMicacy. 

35. Because we now possess this knowledge and 
this certain information, we should learn to honor and 
praise this venerable sacrament, in opposition to those peo- 
ple who reject and abuse it. For after what has so far 
been delivered, any one will readily conceive that we must 
not regard water baptism as a matter so inconsiderable 
as some mere jargon of men, but we should greatly ex- 
alt and honor it as a holy sacrament and peculiar work 
of divine majesty, a work which reasonably may be called 
the baptism with water which is sacred, heavenly, and 
divine. 


30 a BAPTISM, 


36. I do not yet speak concerning the efficacy 
and advantages of baptism, the immense effects which it 
produces ; of this we shall speak hereafter ; but concern- 
ing its constitutional nature, as it is in itself. IT remark 
here, if you observe this particular, how this water is 
united with the word and the name of God, because in 
its administration, he himself has commanded us to pro- 
nounce these words, “1 baptize thee in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,”’ as if he had said, “TJ, 
God the Father, I, God the Son, and Holy Ghost, sanc- 
tify this water,’ therefore you cannot say that it is 
inerely a perishable or earthly water; or, as our adver- 
suries denominate it, water for the bathing even indeed of 
dogs; but you must say it is the water of the divine ma- 
jesty himself, as we mortals do not baptize with it, but 
God himself through our hands; and he has inserted and 
incorporated his name with it, that it may be mingled 
with his name, and may very properly be termed water 
thoroughly divine. For precisely as when you grasp 
a piece of iron, which is lying heated in the forge, you 
wrasp not merely tron, but the fire also which is tn it ; and 
although you do not see the fire, but only the iron, as 
we cannot see the fire glowing so well by day as by 
night, yet it is still not only iron, but both iron and fire ; 
indeed so thoroughly has the fire penetrated through and 
through it, that we can feel or experience nothing but 
the touch of fire; so we should regard the water of baptism, 
embodying thename of God, and altogether and complete- 
ly penetrated with it, so that it has become entirely the 
same essence, and is now a thing far different from other 
water. Like some precious beverage which we present 
to a sick man, which, although it is mostly composed of 
water, yet it is so entirely impregnated with precious 


BAPTISM. ol 


spice and sugar, that it has no longer any taste of water 
in it. But here is by far a more precious water, which 
is sweetened with the name of God, indeed altogether 
and entirely divine, though before our eyes we see noth- 
ing more than water. 

37. We must not then suffer ourselves to regard 
that as insignificant in which the name of God exists ; 
for it is this very name that makes all things pure and 
holy, and which creates and executes all things. In a 
word, the name of God is nothing less than almighty, 
it is divine power, eternal purity, holiness, and life; and 
wherever it is employed according to the divine com- 
mand, there it cannot be without effect and benefit, but 
must produce some great, unspeakable result, rendering 
its effects similar to itself. Consequently in baptism 
also, it must render men pure and holy, heavenly and 
godlike, as we shall see further hereafter. 

38. Since this is certain and incontrovertible, it must 
also follow that baptism is a truly spiritual bap- 
tism, indeed that it possesses in itself and brings a pure 
spirit with it; and vain is the clamor of the factions by 
which they decoy men from the word, exclaiming with 
hostile violence, ‘‘’The Spirit must do it; an external 
substance, such as water, cannot benefit the soul.’’ And 
although they themselves can describe with no certainty 
what the Spirit or a spiritual thing is, or how and 
whereby we come to possess it, they refer the people 
instead to some vacant corner, where they imagine a 
spirit for themselves. 

39. But the case is really this: if you would teach 
me where the Spirit is, and where I can find him, you 
must not point to some Utopia, but seek only according to 
the word of God. When you have this, you dare not con- 


---. ο«- -- οοΦ-ς.- -α..«»--«-’- 


δ, τ κα 6 - 


32 BAPTISM. 


tend much, nor farther gape and search. For apart 
from it you will never find him, though you search all 
your lifetime, and dream and study yourself to death ; 
but you must seek him here, where he has placed him- 
self through the word, as he has instituted baptism in 
his own name. Or how dare you say that the name of 
divine majesty is any thing but the pure Spirit himself? es- 
pecially since the name or person of the Holy Ghost is 
distinctly expressed in this sacrament. Consequently the 
I{oly Ghost must assuredly be present ; and because he 
is present, the water must also become spiritual, and he 
roust operate within it, in order that he may communicate 
the Spirit or render the individual spiritual. Thus bap- 
tism may now be very truly called spiritual water, both 
in regard to itself or in its own essence, and in its oper- 
ation upon those by whom it is received in faith. 

40. Observe, if we thus regard baptism, and mag- 
nify it accordingly, a result must ensue so great and 
glorious, that it will be impossible in an adequate man- 
ner to conceive or express it; more glorious, indeed, 
than the whole heaven and earth. For, that the divine 
majesty is present, and performs therein his noblest 
operation, namely, giving himself to us, and making us 
entirely regenerate and happy, as you shall hear, 
all results from the fact that he has infused his name 
into it, concerning which he has commanded that we 
must not take it in vain, but esteem it honorable and 
holy above every thing, as through it we possess God, 
and all that belongs to our happiness and eternal life, 
and by which he accomplishes all things in heaven and 
earth. Wherefore I should not suffer this blessed baptism 
to be rejected and abused, but esteem and honor it as high 
as Lam bound to honor the name and majesty of God; and 


BAPTISM. 30 


I should not tolerate those blind, wandering spirits, who 
know not what the Spirit is, or where he is, even though 
they make great acclamations about him, and rail against 
the true Spirit. 

41. But you say, “ Why do you indulge all these 
exultations only about water baptism, and not about any 
other creature? For since you say, where the name 
and the word of God are, the Spirit must be also; 
it must follow then, that where the name or word of 
God is applied to any substance, the Spirit also must be 
near, and thus every one can make or find the Spirit 
every where.”? Answer—Here the third part belongs, 
of which I have spoken above, in reference to the com- 
mand and ordinance of God, that it is not sufficient that 
you yourself select a substance, and pronounce the name 
of God upon it, though all substances are good; but a 
command or some word is necessary, which shall di- 
rect you to apply the name of God to this substance. 
And you are not granted the liberty of acting with the 
name and creature of God as you please ; for he has com- 
manded, ‘ Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy 
Godin vain ;”’ in which he acknowledges that we can, with- 
out and in opposition tothe Spirit, misuse hisname, though 
in itself it is full of the Spirit and of every thing excellent. 

42. But that is to misuse his name, if we do not use 
it in the manner which he has pointed out and com- 
manded, but seize it, independent of the connection in 
which it stands, and perform with it whatever we may 
imagine ; like the sorcerer and hag, as well as the false 
teacher and faction leader, who pervert that name and 
word to sin and shame, though the name which they use 
is righteous and holy, the name and the word being the 
very same as used in baptism, Let this be sufficient 


94 BAPTISM. 


which we have now spoken concerning the first part, or 
baptism in itself. 


THE SECOND PART. 


43. Here we will now see why this venerable sacra- 
ment of baptism was instituted, and what purpose it 
serves, or what effect it produces,—though some re- 
marks have already been made upon this subject,— 
namely, that God has ordered and commanded that his 
word and baptism be administered in order. that man 
may be saved, that is, may be freed from sin and death, 
and brought into the kingdom of God and eternal life. 
For thus reads the text: ‘‘ He that believeth and is bap- 
tized, shall be saved.”’ 

44, Here you have the reason why, and the pur- 
pose for which it is a baptism, and what its final design 
is, namely, a washing for souls, or as St. Paul styles it, 
‘a washing of regeneration,’ through which we may 
be born out of this fleshly, sinful generation and nature, 
into a new, spiritual life, in which we shall be justified 
before God, and become heirs of heaven; so that we 
must not regard it as an empty sign, or a vain and use- 
less baptism or bath. As was the case in past times 
under the Old Testament, when the priests, adorned 
with their beautiful ornaments of gold and silk, offered 
their sacrifices, and had their numerous washings and 
purifications, which were only mere signs, and yet im- 
mense burdens which were of no benefit to them, except 
that the priests had by this means something to eat and 
to drink allowed them, so that they might serve in the 
temple: but to the others it was nothing but a perpetual 
service or charge, showing that they were the people of 
God. As the father of a family enjoins daily upon the 


BAPTISM. 30 


servants in his house, to do this or that, that he may 
be esteemed and recognised as their master, and for their 
service he gives them bread and wages. 

45. But here we find a very different thing. For 
in baptism all these external washings and purifications 
are excluded, and no more imposed upon us, nor required 
of us as a law or work, which we must do; but this sa- 
crament is ordered with the design to serve us and 
to give us, not any thing material and transitory, but 
eternal grace, purity or sanctification, and eternal life. 
So that it may indeed be termed a washing of re- 
generation, the true bath of renovated youth, that who- 
ever shall bathe in it shall become youthful and new 
born: not as by nature from his mother’s womb, which is 
the old birth ; but from sin to righteousness ; from guilt 
and condemnation, to innocence and grace; from death 
into eternal life. 

46. But to exhibit this subject more fully, so that 
We may See why and by what means baptism possesses 
this power, how high and how nobly God himself has 
honored it, and what importance he ascribes to it, we 
will first cite the text and narrative of the baptism οἵ. 
our Lord Jesus Christ, alluded to by all the Evangel- 
ists, but particularly described by St. Matthew, chap. 
o, V. 19 and sqq., which reads thus: 

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto 
John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, 
saying, ‘I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest 
thou to me?’ And Jesus answering said unto him, 
‘ Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to ful- 
fil all righteousness.’ Then he suffered him. And Je- 
sus, when he was baptized, went up straight way out of 
the water; and lo! the heavens were opened unto him, 


\ 


36 BAPTISM. 


and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, 
and lighting upon him; and lo! a voice from heaven 
saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased.’ ”’ 

47. This is the text which teaches us duly to praise 
and highly to honor baptism, and this is that noble reve- 
lation of which a parallel had never before been seen or 
heard, and by no words can we describe it in an adequate 
manner. But this text both the factions, and all who 
are under the Pope, read; and here this revelation, this 
beautiful description, stands open and clear before the 
eye of every man. And all who are called Christians, 
ought to be so wise at least, or indeed so pious, as not 
entirely to overlook it, but to open their eyes a little, 
and consider what is here manifested, and what it must 
really be, since God revealed himself from heaven visi- 
bly, and suffered himself to be heard by an audible voice. 
How far, what a distance would all the world run, 
had we never heard it before, and would discover that 
there were a place somewhere at the end of the world 
where such a sublime revelation might be heard? But 
it must be so. The world will be blind, and receive no 
such declaration, though it appear immediately before 
their eyes and ears, because it does not appear with so 
much pomp and magnificence as they admire; but 
it is brought before them with mere, simple words, 
without the least ostentation; they must, therefore, as 
a punishment of their rejection, open their mouths and 
eyes at something else, which they themselves have im- 
agined or dreamed. But let us at least open our hearts 
a little, and let us regard and esteem this revelation, this 
manifestation, as high as we can; for it isso exalted that 
we shall never be able adequately to conceive it. 


BAPTISM, 37 


48. Here, in the first place, we observe how Christ 
the Lord himself has honored baptism ; as he came from 
the land of Galilee to John the Baptist at Jordan, just 
when he wished to commence, and to enter upon that 
office for which he had been sent, that he himself might 
go about and preach; and yet he would not under- 
take it before he should have been first baptized by 
John. Now, John appeared both in regard to his preach= 
ing and baptism, only that he might direct mankind to the 
coming Christ; and he was to proceed or exercise his 
office no farther, but to deliver all over to Christ, when 
that divine personage should come; and thus he was to be 
recognised as nothing more than the servant of Christ, to 
admonish the people that they should reform themselves, 
and receive the approaching Christ as their true Lord 
and Savior, who would himself properly baptize them, 
that is, wash and purify them from sins, and make them 
righteous. And now Christ comes, at the very moment 
when he is to enter upon his tainistry, John must ter- 
minate his office and baptism, and first Christ desires to 
be baptized by bis servant. 

49. Why dots he do this, or what need hasheof John’s 
baptism? If he is the very man to whom John directed 
the people, he indeed has no necessity for baptism in or- 
der that he may be washed and become pure by it, and 
as to such a being it seems altogether in vain; because 
John himself says that it is a baptism of repentance. For 
he is already pure and holy, born through the Holy 
Ghost from the Virgin, free from every sin, he is 
pure holiness as to body and life entire, and even 
the oné by whom every man must be sanctified. So 
that St. John might reasonably pause in his baptism in the 
presence of sucha man. As he did indeed refuse to bap= 


38 BAPTISM. 


tize Christ, of whom he acknowledged that he himself 
ought to be baptized, he resigned and retired from his 
office and baptism, and surrendered it up to Christ only. 

50. Now it is easy to perceive that Christ did not 
do this for his own sake, but for ours. For, as already 
ebserved, he had no need either of baptism or of preach= 
ing for his own person, but he did it all that we might 
thereby be benefitted. Wherefore he honored this min= 
isterial office so highly, that he did not only give orders 
and express command to administer baptism, which would 
have been quite sufficient, but he received it himself also 
trom his servant, in order that he might thus confirmit, and 
by his own act and example teach the people highly to 
esteem and gloriously to extol this blessed institution: 
For in this way he intimates that there must be some- 
thing extremely salutary and graciols connected with 
baptism, because he did not only bestow his Word and 
authority upon it, but placed himself therein, and touched 
this water with his own holy body; indeed sanctified 
and made it full of blessedness. For only observe what 
a being he isin his person !—the Son of God the Father 
trom eternity, and of a Virgin, both true, almighty God 
and Lord of all creatures, and true man; who alone is 
free from every sin, full of righteousness and salvation, 
so that he sanctifies all things through himself. 

51. Who then are those that dare to reject water 
baptism, the water which has touched this almighty being, 
this holy body, as if it wereno better than other water, the 
ordinary drink of animals? Yes, how can a man be so 
shameless as not to blush in his very heart, or who would 
dare to lift up hiseyes, if he should see that this exalted per- 
son, Christ, to the honor of baptism and for our benefit, 
came himself to John, and demanded it, and would not 


BAPTISM. 39 


enter upon his ministry unbaptized, as he had the power 
and the right to do; and nowa sinful mass of corruption 
dares not only to reject baptism, but even to abuse it with 
these blasphemous words, ‘ dog’s bath,—water-bath,” 
expressions which to a Christian are shocking to hear. 
People who thus wilfully speak against holy baptism, 
must surely be accursed to the abyss of misery, as God, 
in punishment of their diabolical wickedness, has surely 


darkened and blinded them, that they have neither eyes: 


nor ears which in this case can either see or hear, how 
Christ himself honors and sanctifies this holy baptism. 
For even a mere simpleton must undoubtedly remark and 
observe this, since the man, Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God, though he had no need of baptism, and was not 
sanctified by it, but himself indeed sanctified that water, 
and yet would not remain unbaptized, because he esteemsit 
nobly and highly, and will have it thus esteemed by us: so 
that even if it otherwise effected or granted nothing,—a 
thing, however, which is impossible, and had he not issued 
the command to baptize all the world,—this example 
of Christ’s would still have been enough for us to honor 
and readily to embrace baptism. 

δῷ. In the second place, this holy baptism was still 
more highly honored and illustrated by a great and glo- 
rious sign and wonder from heaven; as if it were not 
enough that Christ had suffered himself to be baptized 
by his servant John, but so soon as he came out of the 
water, the whole heaven unfolded itself, so that the di- 


vine Majesty came and appeared visibly. And although 


this is described with great simplicity, yet it is most as-~ 
suredly the greatest manifestation, the most glorious 
revelation, that has ever been heard or seen. For here 
God manifested himself, not as to the Patriarchs, by a 


eI ES ἐπ ον σοι δδκακθ ξεν δὺτος σον 


40 BAPTISM. 


secret revelation, through an extraneous form, as through 
an angel, but personally, and in his own majesty, and 
openly along the whole sky, where there was no dark- 
ness or cloud, but pure light and clear splendor. It 
was not by a mere image and a mute sign, but by a liv- 
ing voice and a glorious declaration; by all the three 
persons of the Godhead individually; by a triple 
fizure or shape; so that the entire Majesty poured itself 
out, and stood present over the baptism of Christ. 

dd. This should be sufficient to stop the mouths of 
those wretched spirits who reject the ordinance of baptism, 
For howshould we, or howcan we, applaud it more highly 
than we here see it honored and applauded by the divine 
Majesty, by this preeminently glorious revelation, when 
the heavens, which had remained closed before, unfold, 
and the pure light, yes, the door and window of 
heaven, are opened, and the whole Trinity attend 
the baptism, and sanctify it by their presence. Of this 
he himself preaches and testifies, as we shall hear fur- 
ther hereafter. 

δά. Now this image and this revelation did not ap- 
pear for the sake of Christ our Lord, just as he also did. 
not receive baptism for his own sake. For to what pur- 
pose did he need that the Father together with the Holy 
Ghost,should become manifest and speak concerning him, 
since the Holy Ghost was at all times personally with and 
in Christ? But it was all exhibited for our sakes, who 
should believe on him, and in his name be baptized and 
saved, and it is placed before us as a perpetual image of 
Christianity, wherein God manifestly exhibited himself, 
and suffered himself both to be seen and heard, and was 
so near to us that he cannot display himself nearer ; 
in a most lavely and friendly form, too, and through 


BAPTISM. 41 


a message the most consolatory, as we shall hear: and 
doubtless with him there was an innumerable multitude 
of all the heavenly powers, who were standing in 
honor of baptism before their Lord and Creator. All 
this was done, therefore, that we might learn what he 
intends by baptism, and what we receive by it. 

09. For as this glorious display of divine majesty 
was once visibly exhibited, so it is still manifested spir- 


itually and invisibly, to every one who is baptized in 


Christ; it has been prefigured by this revelation as 
a perpetual evidence, that tae divine Majesty will 
always be present in baptism; and in erder that we 
might be certain of this, Christ himself kas expressed it 
distinctly in the institution of baptism, where he com- 
mands us to baptize in the name of the Father, of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost: so that these words ex- 
actly correspond with the character of the event, and 
they present and prove te or faith that which was 
visibly represented to the eye. Consequently we may 
entertain no doubt, that wherever any one is baptized, 
the heavens are certainly opened, the whole Trin- 
ity is present, and by its own agency hallows and blesses 
the individual who 15 baptized. 

06. From this you can now at once clearly and 
most certainly show, contrary to the abusers of baptism, 
in the first place, that it is not mere ordinary water, 
such as the cow drinks; but a water which is blessed 
and hallowed by the divine Majesty, and, as above said, 
rendered entirely and thoroughly divine; because we 
distinctly perceive, both, that all three persons are men- 
tioned in the institution of baptism, and in this descrip- 
tion they are asserted and represented as having been 
present with the event. And although we no longer 


ee ee. eee 


42 RAPTISM. 


behold the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, bodily 
and visible to the eye, hovering over Christ, nor hear the 
voice of the Father; yet that image remains in our 
hearts, as for our sakes it was once represented, as a 
sign and witness connected with the words, in which 
we hear and believe what St. John saw then. For as 
it was there, in the visible presence, so it is administered 
here, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost. There he manifested himself in a vis- 
ible form; so here he manifests himself in his word and 
name. 

57. In the second place, we must not deem this im- 
age vain and ineffectual, like a human figure or form 
delineated on a table or in a mirror, where there is noth- 
ing more than some painted color, or a corresponding 
shape and appearance, which has no life nor power. 
But here is a living object, in which the divine Ma- 
jesty has represented and impressed himself, and he is 
really and personally present, not a mere image, 
but the essence itself,—~yes indeed, the life and pow- 
er. For he does not act in this particular, as if he 
would only show an empty form, as a shadow or a phan- 
tom, like the conjurer ; but in order that he may execute 
and manifest his pewer and operation; and this opera- 
tion is not that which he exerts on ordinary occasions 
with his creatures, whom he creates and supports, or when 
he effects something by their instrumentality ; but this is 
the peculiar, the direct, the most noble operation of di- 
vine Majesty, which touches our redemption and eternal 
salvation ; and each person of the heavenly Majesty has 
his own characteristic, so that there are the Father with 
his light and majesty, the Son with his blood, and the 
Holy Ghost with his fire. Consequently we must re- 


BAPTISM. 43 


gard this water or baptism, not*as a mere water-bath, 
or emblem. For wherever God connects himself so 
as to be present, there he must also be powerful, and 
produce some godlike result. Why otherwise should he 
visibly manifest himself, and make a dispensation so 
ulustrious and remarkable ? 

58. But all this took place in order that we 
might understand by this representation, what God has 
here in his designs, and what his will and intention are in 
reference to baptism; designs which he afterwards defines 
and explains in his declaration: namely, that in it he 
gives us his majesty, light, and power, and himself with 
all that he possesses and is able to do. But what is he 
able todo? ‘To take away death and sin, and all our 
misery, and substitute for them eternal righteousness, 
life, and joy. By what means does he do this? By 
the blood of his beloved Son. This is the ransom which 
was paid, and by which these blessings have been pro- 


cured for us, in order that we may obtain favor with 


him; as Christ says, John 3, 16: ‘God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.” 
59. But in order that we may conceive and feel this 


through faith, the Holy Ghost with his fire must warm 


and enlighten us. -Now, because all this takes place in 
the holy sacrament of baptism, certainly we must not, 
hike an irrational creature, consider it merely water ; 
but as the real blood of the Son of God, and the real 
fire of the Holy Ghost; and that here the Son sanctifies 
with his blood, the Holy Ghost bathes with his fire, the 
Father gives vitality with his light and splendor; so 


that all three persons are present, and alike produce one ~ 


and the same divine result, and pour out all their power 
in baptism. . 


44 BAPTISM. 


60. Now who can fully declare this unspeakable 
grace and glory, when God has thus manifested himself, 
when he is willing to be ours, and to give us all? Or, 
how dare any one contemn baptism, when he sees and 
hears that God himself has ordained and instituted it, 
and honored and distinguished it with his presence ; when 
indeed with his own fingers he administers the ordinance, 
wherever his command and ordinance prevail and are 
adopted? so that the sorcerer or the factious spirit takes 
no part in it; for he commands and declares, ‘Go ye, 
therefore, and baptize in my name,”’ that is, “ Ye shall 
neither do it nor regard it otherwise than that I myself, 
together with the Father and Holy Ghost, baptize.’ 
How can we speak or think more gloriously and highly 
concerning baptism? Yet heaven and earth are too 
contracted fully to comprehend this. 

61. In the third place, it is by far the greatest 
circumstance of all, that God the Father himself 
speaks, and delivers a discourse over the baptism of 
Christ the Lord. Here then should all the world re- 
pair, with all possible speed, to hear the Preacher, God 
the Father, speaking from heaven; as we should desire 
to do, if we knew that there were a place even at the 
end of the world, where God himself might be heard 
speaking. How happy should we consider those to 
whom this might happen? But here heispreaching forus 
before our eyes, and extends so much grace to us, that 
he did not only proclaim it once on that special occa- 
sion, in order that those only might glorify it, but causes 
it to be continually preached to all who were to come 
_ after that, and who are still to come, till the last day ; 
so that we may daily hear it, were we only so pious as 
to open our ears and hearts, and feel willing to under- 


BAPTISM. 45 


stand it. Now let us hear how this annunciation of the 
Father is expressed. For without doubt it must be a 
most noble and precious annunciation, which he himself 
made from heaven. 

** This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleas- 
ed.”’ 

62. This isa brief declaration, but so rich and preg- 
nant, that no man uponearthcan fully comprehend, or ever 
learn it thoroughly. For in this declaration the heavenly 
Majesty includesand imparts all divine wisdom and intelli- 
gence; in addition he pours out all his purposes and his 
affections, so that indeed all is revealed which he himself 
isor canbe. But this is boundless and incomprehensible ; 
and yet it is all embraced in this short proposition, and 
concentrated in this one person whois called Christ. He 
directs us to him alone, and knows nothing else to preach 
but of Christ who was here baptized. By this he consti- 
tutes and consecrates him Doctor and Priest, and King 
and Lord over all things, not with foul chrism, but 
through the life-giving Holy Spirit, that was visibly 
hovering upon him. 

63. Although we are not able, nor have we underta- 
ken to amplify this declaration, yet in order that we may 
speak a few things respecting it, it will first be necessary to 
remark again, that these words were not spoken because 
Christ needed any such thing ; as indeed this whole reve- 
lation was not made for his sake;—he himself did not 
become man for his own sake ;—but we should know that 
it was declared and written for us; just as for us it hap- 
pened that he was conceived, was nates suffered, and 
rose from the dead. 

64. Consequently we must not let this declaration 
remain so far neglected, as if it were useless, futile, and 


teeta τ ϑττόππ τὖτὖτ.ὝὁἘ8ὥεπτί τοστοτνονυννν τδννννΦοννρΔᾷνϑᾷνννπρννννννμ, νννννν.., - 


46 BAPTISM. 


cold, nor permit this divine testimony to exist in vain, 
which amply deserves to be inscribed on our hearts in 
glowing characters, because it is the Majesty of heaven 
that announces it to us. And it is surely a lamentable 
evil, that we have passed these words unregarded so long, 
so cold, and dead, that we do not esteem them nor know 
how to use them. Every one thinks it an old affair, 
which can no longer be profitable to us, reading and 
hearing it as nothing better than a history of some Turk- 
ish war, or of Dietrich von Bern. But this is not a 
proper treatment of the word of God, to regard it in so 
cold and careless a manner, that no one is warmed and 
improved by it. Wherefore, I say, you should read and 
hear these words,—‘ This is my beloved Son,”’ &c.,—as 
if the Father from heaven were still speaking this lesson 
in my heart and yours, and was saying, “ Let all the 
world apply their hearts and ears, for thus I proclaim, 
namely, of nothing else than this Son, and I will have 
nothing else proclaimed or commanded, heard or re- 
ceived, as my word and declaration ; so that all eyes and 
ears may be filled with this proclamation, and so directed 
as to enable them to fix upon the Son.”? For these words 
show us what we receive from him. 

65. Now of this declaration we have two parts, as 
he himself divides it. 1. ““ This is my beloved Son.” 
2. “In him I am well pleased.”’ And this expression, 
“‘my Son,” we must not suffer ourselves to pervert as 
the heretics do, who say, “ It is an expression of grace, 
and not of nature, or of the real Godhead.”’? For they 
conceive themselves so wise and acute as to understand 
it intuitively, and they argue, as the Jews do, ‘‘ That 
God surely cannot have a wife in heaven, and conse- 
quently he cannot have a natural Son; for this reason 


BAPTISM. 47 


Christ must be esteemed a Son of God only from grace 
or by adoption. Just as a man who has no children, 
may adopt some wandering stranger, and call him his 
son, and make him heir; this man cannot then be called 
a son by nature or birth, but only by adoption. And 
notwithstanding he may become heir of all his benefac- 
tor’s possessions, yet he is not his son by nature nor of 
his flesh and blood, but only by his will, through which 
he has been chosen and adopted.” 

66. But we say, according to the Scripture, that 
Christ is called and really is the Son of God, not only 
by his will or grace, as we are only chosen and adopted 
children, but he isa real Son by nature, through a real, na- 
tural, as well as divine birth, the same divine essence with 
the Father. For, to speakinthemanner in which he here 
speaks,—‘‘ This is my Son,’’—we find nowhere in the 
Scripture, where in the singular number he speaks of one 
alone, or where he calls one single individual his Son ; but 
wherever he speaks of other men, he uses always either 
the plural number, designating many, or a collective 
noun, as when he means the whole family or nation, by 
the expression, “my son,” as Hosea 11, 1: “I have 
brought my son out of Egypt,” that is, the whole peo- 
ple of Israel. But otherwise he observes this remark- 
able distinction, and he has never used this expression in 
designating any single individual, either angel or man: 
as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows, chap. 1, ν. 5: 
‘“¢ Unto which of the angels said he at any time, ‘ Thou 
art my son?’?”? He uses the same expression again 
when he speaks to David about Christ alone: ‘ He shall 
be my Son, and I will be his Father.”’? David himself has 
introduced this expression again in his Psalms, and proves 
that he understood it as relating to a true, natural Son; 


48 BAPTISM. 


as where he says, Psalm 89, 28: “I will make him my 
first begotten Son, highest among the kings of the earth.” 
Again, Psalm 2, 7, he says: “ The Lord hath said unto 
me, ‘ Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’ ”’ 
This expression he uses in reference to no other individ- 
ual, nor to angels, who notwithstanding are the most ex- 
alted creatures that God has made, and in a different 
sense are also called the children of God; yet he has 
not,—says the same Epistle,—honored them with this 
high title, “My first begotten Son,” and, ‘“ Thee 
have I begotten ;’’ no individual, indeed, but Christ 
alone. 

67. Accordingly, by this declaration, we should es- 
tablish our faith firmly and surely, and conclude that 
this Son is something more exalted than all creatures 
both in heaven and upon earth, because God has given 
this name to no other being ; and most assuredly he must 
be deemed a true, natural Son, of the same nature and 
essence or majesty with the Father,—as the son of ἃ. 
man is called a natural son, because he is of the same 
nature, or of the same blood and flesh. 

68. In this manner was the expression first used in 
reference to this person, as he here applies and appro- 
priates it to this particular or individual Christ, who 
was baptized in Jordan, and distinguishes him particu- 
larly from every other individual, honoring and applaud- 
ing him above all creatures, as he calls him by that name 
through a special revelation. Consequently we must be 
fully convinced that he is higher than all angels, and 
really the true God. For besides the creature, there is 
nothing except God. Wherefore we also should esteem " 
and honor him, as he has been distinguished and pre- 
sented by this declaration, as a being who is really na 


΄ ͵ BAPTISM. 49 


tural man, but not only or merely man, but also in reality 
by nature and by birth, the Son of God. 

69. This we must comprehend and maintain through 
faith, and let the ignorant go on, who assail it with the pre- 
sumptuous power of reason, and criticise and cavil accord- 
ing to their own imaginations,—a thing which I might 
accomplish as well as they, if imagining and dreaming 
wouldavail. But how would it stand against these clear 
and distinct words, and when would my conscience rest 
with certainty upon the comment and definition of these 
men? These people would lead me again into Utopia, 
or adduce some other passages, which they would stretch 
and pervert as much as they do this; for example, that 
the Scripture says, ‘‘ There is only one God,” &c. With 
this they exclaiin against us, exactly as if we did not also | 
acknowledge it, and as.if it were a strange and unusual 
thing fer a Christian to say so. 

70. For I too know this perfectly well, and it 15 s the 
very thing we have said, that in contradistinction from the 
‘creature we must reckon but one God. But when we 
ascend above and beyond the creature up to the Supreme 
Majesty, and wish to know how the Godhead is consti- 
tuted, there my wisdom ceases, and I must hear what 
he says, how and wkat he is. Here, then, I hear him- 
self saying, that there are three persons in one nature 

and divine essence. Here should I rest satished, and no 
further criticise, and exclaim: “ Indeed L cannot cempr: 
hendit.”’ Consequently it avails nothing to introduce in 
opposition to this fact the declaration, that there isnomore 
than one God. For on this point Moses and the Scrip- 
ture will say only so much as we also say, if we speak 
concerning the essence, that beyond the creature, there 


is no more than ene God, and no one should seck ane 
a 


5 BAPTISM. 


other God. If I understand and maintain this, I must 
then hear how God himself speaks of his own majesty, 
and how he unfolds and reveals what he is; in this way 
1 cannot err or be deceived. Because I now hear out 
of his own word and testimony from heaven, that Christ 
is his true Son and the very God, but still a different 
person; 1 must surely allow it to be true. But how 
those persons are united, and how they correspond with 
each other, it does not belong to me to scrutinize, but 
only to believe and to speak, as | hear him speaking. 
Hence, because he always calls Christ his Son here be- 
low, and applies that term to no other being, he must in 
reality be the true God. 

7i, Thus we confess also this article in our Creed : 
“6 1 beheve in Jesus Christ, his (the Father’s) only-be- 
gotten Son,” &c. For by the appellation only-begotten 
Sion, we mean that he is his right, natural Son, born of 
his nature. This is our Lord, whom we must wor- 
ship and call upon, as a God, begotten in eternity of the 
Father, and born in time or according to human nature 
from the Virgin; so that there are two natures in one 
person, united together and called Christ. Thus we be- 
lieve and preach. Whoever will not thus believe, can 
let it alone, and be exceedingly wise, and counsel God 
how he should speak. But we desire God to teach and 
counsel us, and we desire to follow that instruction, 
though it may not perhaps correspond with our wisdom. 

72. The first thing, then, is to learn here who this 
individual is, namely, the only Son cf God, and how he 
is constituted by his Father, as his truly born, Lord 
ever heaven and earth, and all creatures. Thus 
is he honored and proclaimed by the Father him- 
self, and crowned as king, not with purple nor gold, nor 


BAPTISM. ol 


set upon a golden throne, nor anointed with chrism, as 
we do to men; but adorned with a different crown and 
ointment, namely, the voice and declaration of divine 
Majesty, who here declares,—This is my beloved Son, 
who is Lord over heaven and earth, King of kings, and 
Lord of lords. * 

73. Essentially he was already, indeed, God and Lord 
of all creatures, so that he had no need for his own sake 
thus to be declared and honored; but it was revealed, 
illustrated, and proclaimed for us, that we also might 
know in what manner to esteem him; and it was pro- 
claimed to us, that we might also adore him as a being 
upon whom, though here exhibited in his humanity, 
heaven and earth, righteousness, life, sin, death, hell, 
and all that man can mention which is not God himself, | 
depend. Over these has this individual been set, and has 
also been proclaimed that we might regard him as Lord, 
and be baptized m his name, so that he may be our 
Lord, may govern, protect, and aid us, that we may 
have every thing in him, and that nothing may injure 
nor overpower us. 

74. But this exaltation no language can express, 
nor can gold or precious stones adorn it. For, to 
be called the natural Son of God and the Lord 
of all creatures, is surely eminent beyond concep- 
tion. A single angel is alone more noble and pow- 
erful than the whole world with all its pomp and 
power; but he is inconceivably boundless and high 
above all angels, and whatever can be conceived in 
the universe; and yet all is here poured out and com- 
municated to us in that expression, “‘ This is my be- 
loved Son.’’ All this, as I have said, must be embraced 
in our faith. For it is very improbable as to appear 


o2 BAPTISM. 


ance, that this is said concerning this man. ἀπά 
how great and wonderful is that exaltation, to be the 
natural Son and Heir of God, or Lord over all things ? 
Yet great, and far greater and more wonderful is it, that 
all this was conferred upon this person who hes there in 
the lap of the Virgin, and here stands in Jordan and 
suffers himself to be baptized. Nothing is to. be 
seen but a poor, impotent, uncovered man, of no impos- 
ing appearance, entirely destitute of the splendor of any 
glory and power; and yet he must be believed and 
called a Lord of lords, King of kings, indeed of ali an- 
gels besides, who holds in his omnipotent hands the 
world, the devil, sin, and death, and all things. Who 
ean discern all this in this man? or who dare say or be- 
lieve this concerning him, had not God himself from hea- 
ven revealed it, and proclaimed, ‘‘ Thisishe?”? Here is 
the first part of this divine, this heavenly declaration. 

70. ‘The second part thus declares: ‘In whom 1 
am well pleased.’ By this he is consecrated also as 
pastor or priest; as in Psalm 110, 4, he is called 
an eternal Priest, as ever standing before God, to 
reconcile us and to intercede for us. . For we know 
that we all are born in sin, condemned to death, and 
always under the wrath of God, from the first man to 
the last. The devil has effected this, and brought it 
over the whole expanse of human nature. Whocan now 
reconcile God again, and take the curse from us? No 
man, no prophet, no saint has appeared, who would dare 
to advance before God, and who would be able to avert 
hiswrath; for in consequence of this wrath, each was him- 
self exposed to death. Indeed no angel has the power to 
take this wrath upon himself, and make an adequate 
compensation, 


ee 


BAPTISM. 53 


76. And yet, if man should be relieved, if any one 
should be saved, if sins are to be blotted out, if death is to 
beovercome, the kingdom ofthe devil destroyed, hellextin- 
guished, and the grace of God rekindled, observed, and 
magnified, God must begin himself, must send and substi- 
tute a mediator, through whom we may return from wrath 
to grace, from sin and death to virtueand life. Noconehas 
ability to be this mediator, nor power to do all this, except 
his own Son; and for.this reason he must visit us himsel/, 
and assume our nature, our blood and fesh. Yet, as he 
must relieve us from sins, he must himself be free from sin, 
and thus as.a mediator between God and us, become both 
truly Gedandman. Inorder thathe may be received and 
believed as such, the Father himself has revealed this to 
us from heaven, and given evidence of him,—* This is my 
beloved Son, in whom Iam well pleased.”? Asif he had 
said, “ΤΠ you desire to have this wrath and condemna- 
tion averted, and to seék and to find grace from me, 
then you must come hither and put your trust in this 
man ; he shall be the only true Priest and Mediator, and 
in no other way can you be reconciled, and find the grace 
of God.”’ 

77. There were under the dispensation of Moses, very 
many services to God, many priests and sacrifices; and 
among the people many works and formalities, all per- 
formed in order that God might say: “In these do I 
find pleasure.’? But noneof these could secure this decla- 
ration. For they had not the heavenly testimony that he 
had said at any time, “In these I find pleasure, and will in 
consideration of these services, be gracious and forgive 
your sins.” But here only he says, “In this man is 
my pleasure, and through him 1 will be gracious, and 
become reconciled; from him must flow whatever wil! 


δά BAPTISM. 


be pleasing and acceptable to me.”? Here then every 
thing which we may do or bring before him is entirely 
disregarded and set aside, be they services of God, offer- 
ings, or works, according to the institution of Moses, or 
according to any preconceived opinion, intending that 
we by these may attain the grace of God, and be saved: — 
and every thing is included in the Son alone, that can 
please him, so that nothing independent of, and beyond 
him, can be able to effect a reconciliation. ‘* Whatever 
shall be spoken er done by or in him, it surely and cer- 
tainly,”’ says he, ‘‘ will be grateful to my heart. In no 
other way shall my pleasure and delight be secured, but 
here alone shall all eyes, ears, and hearts attend; here 
shall be every thing,—all wrath and displeasure entirely 
removed, and grace and love take their places.” 

73. Behold! by this declaration, God has elevated 
him to the highest honor, so that he is both a true King 
and Priest, an Heir and Lord, who independently and 
powerfully reigns and rules over all things, and besides 
‘secures the Father’s grace for us. ~Andn this he shows 
his paternal affection towards all who believe on Christ, 
‘so that they may be assured that God is not their ene- 
my, but will be a gracious and friendly Father, who is 
neither willing nor able, if we adhere to Christ, to be 
angry or to be offended at us. “Though we perhaps may 
stumble and fall; yet if we turn again and apply to this 
Son, all shail ‘be entirely forgiven and forgotten; and 
he will say, “ This is pleasing to me, for the sake of my 
‘heloved Son and Priest; thus I may be reconciled and 
he rendered gracious, for my heart is entirely upon him.” 
Thus he comprehends in these short but expressive 
words, nothing but pure grace and consolation, and 
opens unto us a great heaven, full of light and 


BAPTISM. δῦ 


glory, cordial benevolence, and paternal love, so that 
we should not be terrified before him, as before an an- 
gry judge; as the devil prefigures him to the timid, the 
terrified heart, and as the law threatens the obdurate im- 
penitent. But he earnestly desires that we look to him 
for love and for every blessing, and wait before him with 
a joyful heart, and no longer be terrified at any thing 
that would alarm or injure us. 

79. For he has given us this revelation, only with 
the design that we may be certain and sure, that he will 
show us grace and paternal love in Christ, his beloved 
Son, and through him support us against all that would 
withdraw us from him; .and thus has he set aside all 
wrath and guilt, still further, all lords, kings, and prin- 


ces, yes, all angels, and powers, and dominions, all the 


wisdom, the holiness, the divine service of the world, 
and, in a word, every thing which would require any 
thing else from us; that henceforth nothing else may 
avail, but to cleave to this Lord and Priest alone, who 
aids us against all enemies, all assaults, terrors, and mala- 
dies, and who is our Mediator forever,-our eternal surety 
indeed, adopted by the Father for us, that he may be a 
gracious and friendly Father to us. But he desires that 
we may seek his grace in no other way than in his Son, 
as he has directed us; as those do, for instance, who 
by the law, or their own self-chosen works, expect to 
reconcile themselves to God, and to obtain the forgive- 
ness of sins. 

80. And inorder that we may more firmly and cer- 
tainly comprehend this gracious disposition and will of 
the Father, he has exhibited them not only in these 
words, but also in the external signs and manifestations of 
this revelation. For he has.revealed himself here, not as 


56 BAPTISM. 


of old, when he instituted the Old Testament, and com- 
municated the law through Moses upon mount Sinai, 
when the whole heavens were dark and gloomy with 
thick clouds, and nothing was heard or seen but thunder 
and lightning, so that the mountain was convulsed, and 
the earth trembled, and all was terror and consterna- 
tion; but here are every where splendor and light, and 
a joyful view, all the sky is clear, all nature smiles 
upon us, and the divine Majesty himself descends 
above us; no longer do we find that vast distance be- 
tween God and ourselves, but he exhibits himself visi- 
bly in the most friendly and lovely manner: the Son in 
his human nature, standing at the water with his ser- 
vant John, like any other innocent man; the Father in 
a lovely voice and annunciation which speaks of pure 
grace and love; and the Holy Ghost confirming it all, 
hovering over Christ in that most pleasing form, the 
form of an innocent dove, which is free from all resentment 
or bitterness, and possesses a heart altogether friendly. 
On the whole, here is nothing but consolatory, affec- 
tionate love that we behold and hear, as if the sky were 
streaming with honey and sweetness, and pouring down 
upon us grace and benevolence. Indeed we may enter- 
tain no other thought of him, and look to him for noth- 
ing less. 

81. For what heart can conceive, what tongue can 
express, the sweet comfort which we find in these words, 
if we believe and feel them as a Christian should be- 
lieve, that God spoke these words to him, “ This is my 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?’ For here 
indeed nothing else is said than if he would say to 
us, “I give you all my grace, love, and kindness which 
I possessin my heart and in my power. For, in order that 


BAPTISM. 57 


you may entertain no doubt or uncertainty, I here give 
you, not Moses, or a prophet, or an angel, or a saint; not 
some treasure of silver or gold, nor any other great 
earthly or heavenly gift; but mine own beloved Son, 
that is, my own heart, and the everlasting fountain, the 
well of every grace and blessing, which no angel nor 
creature in heaven or earth can fathom or conceive. 
This shall be a sign and surety of my grace and love, 
against your sins and fears; and as he is by birth and by 
right the eternal Heir and Lord of the universe, so shall 
you also be my children, heirs in him, and possess all that 
he possesses, and is able to give.’”’ . For besides giving us 
his right and inheritance which he possessed by nature,. 
he has earned and purchased us, as our Priest and 
Bishop, by his suffering and death, that we may be his 
chosen children, and theeverlasting co-heirs of all his joys. 
Behold now! what more should hedo, what more bestow? 
and what more exalted or more excellent can the heart of 
man desire or conceive? And still he does all this with- 
out any labor or service of ours, even before any one 
had prayed for it, or thought about it ; so that we have 
no boast to make of this at all, but we must consider it 
the gift of pure grace, and nothing can be done in return 
for it, except that we should thank and love him for 
this unspeakable grace; indeed he desires nothing 
more. 

82. From these views you may judge what those 
are doing, who teach and preach in opposition to this 
divine annunciation, their own human works and servi- 
ces; presuming to. reconcile both themselves and others 
to God, and to obtain his grace; as if for this purpose 
they have no need at all of Christ the Lord, and 
ean please God very well without him, Indeed you 


oS BAPTISM. 


may well suppose what our Papists still deserve, 
who will not hear or regard this declaration concern- 
ing Christ and baptism, and who persecute and murder 
those who preach the truth. Because these Papists wil- 
fully cast away and utterly reject all the grace and love 
offered and proposed in Christ, what must reasonably 
happen to them, but to meet instead wrath and dis- 
pleasure, to be exterminated without any mercy, and be 
committed, moreover, to burning torments forever? As 
we see already such wrath and punishment impending 
over them, that they continually persevere in their ob- 
stinate wickedness, and al ways increase in impiety, sothat 
their fall will be the more terrible. But God preserve 
us who have grace, that we may understand this, and 
aid us, that we may adhere to it! 

83. So much now has been briefly said concerning 
this beautiful text, in which the true beginning of the 
New Testament, and the sum of the whole Gospel, have 
been comprised and given to us by the Father himself; 
so brief and yet so complete and full that no man can 
conceive nor express it; so that we must not regard it 
so coldly and run over it, as if it were the vain talk of 
men. For we behold here how great and noble a des- 
cription is written concerning this venerable sacrament 
ef baptism, and here it is shown to. us how we must es- 
teem it, namely, that this water is sanctified by Christ, 
because he touched it with his own body, and that 
through baptism heaven is opened to us, the whole di- 
vine Majesty is personally present, and communicates 
himself fully and entirely to us, the Father mani- 
fests his grace and geod pleasure in Christ, and 
testifies that he will bless and assist us, and give 
us divine righteousness instead of sin, and eter- 


BAPTISM. 59 
nal life in the place of death. For since all this ap- 
peared in the baptism of Christ, it is clearly shown 
to us, that this grace is given to us in and through 
baptism; whereas it was all thus revealed not for the 
sake of Christ, but for our sake. And it was done even 
in a place, where John was baptizing, where there was 
a wilderness, that we might see how he honors baptism, 
and he there shows us what he considers it to be. Other- 
wise he might have made this revelation in some con- 
spicuous place, as in Jerusalem, the capital of the nation, 
and in the temple. 

St. You have now what is to be said concerning the 
power and advantages of baptism; all which as repre- 
sented above, Christ has comprised in his own words, 
where he says, “Πρ that believeth and is baptized, shall 
be saved.”? For by this he gives us to understand, that 
his will and ordinance are, that we receive baptism, not 
in order that the body may be washed, and remain out- 
wardly pure and clean, like the daily purifications of the 
ancient Jews; nor that it might be a mere empty sign, 
by which people might know us, as the Jews, with their 
circumcision ; but exclusively with the design, that we 
- may be saved by it, that is, be freed from sin, death, and 
hell, and every evil, to be eternally righteous, holy, and 
vigorous, the heirs of heaven. For all this must result 
from this expression. For, if man be saved, his 
freedom from sin and justification must precede; as 
no one will be saved, except him who is righteous 
and holy beforehand. Again, if he shall be saved, 
he must also be freed from death, and possess life: 
besides, he must be secured from hell and condem- 
nation, and finally every calamity, unhappiness, and sor- 
row, fear and terror, must be taken away, and he must 


00 BAPTISM. 


be brought to everlasting tranquillity and joy. ΑἸ] this, 
I say, baptism brings to us; not because it is water, but 
because the name and power of God is in it, who has 
ordained that it shall be a heavenly, divine water; and 
he will give us these blessings by means both of this 
water and his word. or he has power and strength 
abundantly sufficient to produce this effect, whenever 
he wills or determines, even through a substance much 
655 considerable than water. 

85. Thus you have now, I think, been told enough, 
why we applaud and hold this blessed institution so high 
over all other things upon earth. For, from all this 
you may clearly perceive, that we must not in this mat- 
ter, esteem our own works, however great and precious 
they may be, but the work and power of God alone, as 
it is reasonable to esteem and applaud them. A work 
and a power which other teachers and preachers,— 
neither the recent factions, nor the old Pope’s po- 
nies,—do not embrace or understand; although they also 
have these excellent texts and testimonies of the Scrip> 
ture concerning baptism lying before their eyes; but they 
stumble over them as if they were mere trifies, and they 
can muster nothing against us but something from their 
jargon and their dreams. According to their opinion, 
“We forbid good works, and do not live as we should.” 
Consequently they think they have acquitted themselves 
well, and entirely subverted us. But Jet them foam and 
disgorge themselves; for they are not worthy to know 
or to speak otherwise. If, indeed, they were so pious 
as to be able or willing to turn their attention to Serip* 
ture, then they would suffer our doctrine to go unas* 
sailed. For why is it that they boast so much of their 
works? And what have we here to do with works, 


HAPTISM. 61 


wither to command or to forbid? Why do they not 
speak with Christ about it, and order him to make it 
differently? Yet we neither devised nor framed this ex- 
pression, “He that believeth and is baptized.” Is 
it the expression of a Lutheran ora Papist? I think in- 
deed it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost and of Christ 
himself, and stands in the same Bible which they as well 
as we have; and it is true that we do not here speak nor 
should we speak of our works. 

86. For you yourself will say,—What is in baptisin 
that we should boast of it as ours? Or what have we 
contributed to it? I do not think, indeed, that any man - 
is so rude and presumptuous as to say, that at gi 1S 
his or any person’s. For no baptism takes place in my 

name or yours, or the name of any saint, but in th 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
This is the authority which can perform, and whic! 
should perform it. Of this should we boast, if we would 
talk of works; for he is doing the proper kind cf werks, 
which may reasonably be esteemed divine; which are, 
to blot out sins, to avert death, to extinguish heil. 

87. These are, 1 think, different δε τ from those 
indefinite things Ghieh they have been teaching; as, 
their monkish ‘and self-constituted works,—to Last, to 
walk barefoot, to hold and establish mass, which they per- 
form, not only without the word of God, but even to the 
rejection and disgrace of precious baptism,—to cruel b)as- 
phemy indeed upon the name of God, and his works; since 
they exalt and hold them equal with baptism, as their 
doctors shamefully write, “ He who goes into a cleister 
and takes orders, does as much as if ed came immediately 
from baptism.”” This is the unholy bigness and real 


malignity of the wretched Antichrist, with ae ith he 
6 


i 


03 BAPTISM: 


has tainted all Christianity, so that he has drawn the 
people from baptism to his own works ; yes, he has torn 
them away from it by force, and set these works in the 
place of Christ and his baptism ; so that none had power 
to retain it, except those whom God has wonderfully 
preserved. For so soon as we have removed the child’s 
shoes, and have just brought it again from the holy laver, 
they subvert the whole by such preaching, “Ὁ you 
have lost your baptism long ago, and this chrism-cloth 
has been tainted with your sins; you must now consider 
that you must atone for your sins, and fast often, must 
pray, perform pilgrimages, erect churches, until you can 
be reconciled to God, and thus again obtain his grace.” 

88. ‘This is at once to subvert and nullify all that we 
have derived from baptism; and it is, alas! fulfilled, as St. 
Peter has prophesied concerning them, 2 Epis. 2, 20, 
that by their doctrine they, having just narrowly es- 
caped from error, and become purified from sins through 
baptism, again plunge and wallow in the same filth, and 
drown themselves in it; and it happens to them as to the 
filthy animal, which has just come from swimming, and 
wallows herself again in the next marsh. Thus has it 
happened to us also by the doctrines of the Pope and of all 
the books and writings of his theologians and decretists, 
all of whom have done nothing else but pervert and 
abuse Christ and his baptism, so that in it no one could 
find peace or comfort: | 

39. For I myself was a monk fifteen years, be- 
sides the time I had lived before, ard I diligently read 
all their books, and did all that was in my power; yet 
I never was able to console myself with my baptism, 
but always thought, “Ὁ when wilt thou become pious, 
and have done enough to receive the grace of God?” 


ες, να..- "5" 


BAPTISM. 63 


And with these reflections, I devoted myself to monkery, 
and I tortured and punished myself with fasting, cold, 
and an austere life; and yet I accomplished nothing 
more by all this, than only to lose my beloved baptism, 
indeed to deny its efficacy. ‘This is the fruit and the 
reward for which we have to thank these teachers of 
works, which they still defend, and they know of nothing 
else to exclaim about but works, contrary to the decla- 
ration concerning Christ and his baptism, which God 
himself made from heaven, and thus they really and in- 
deed hurl-away the baptism of Christ, and substitute 
another baptism of works; so that they are even as per- 
nicious in consequence of their doctrine as the Anabap- 
tists ; indeed they make nothing else but Jews and Turks 
out of us, as if we had never been baptized. 

90. Wherefore in order that we may not be per- 
verted by such doctrine, let us maintain this pure doc- 
trine, as we here see and understand it, that baptism is 
not our work or deed, and that a great and wide dis- 
tinction must be made between the works of God and 
our own. For there are some works which the divine 
Majesty performs upon us, for instance, creating us with 
body and soul, and giving us ail that is in heaven and on 
earth. These are his general works towards al] men 
upon earth, and all are very precious and excellent. 
But besides these works, he performs others, upon those 
who become Christians and his children. Tor after we 
had fallen and become corrupted through sin, still he 
takes us once more in his divine hands, gives us his 
word and baptism with which he washes and cleanses 
us from sin. These are works, I say, which belong to 
the divine Majesty alone, in which we do, and are able 
to do, nothing more than to receive them from him. Of 


6. BAPTISM. 


these works should we boast, if we talk of great divine 
works. For he is the true Operator, who with his fin- 
eer can obliterate our sins, subdue death, conquer Satan, 
and destroy hell. 

91. But since we enjoy and understand these works 
of God, we may now speak of those works which we 
ean do and ought to do, namely, to thank God for 
these his works towards us, and praise him before 
all the world, so that other people also may under- 
stand and obtain them, and thus to live to the honor of 
God, and the benefit of our neighbor, to aid and serve 
every man, with labor or with charity, or by any means 
we can. In this practice we do not teach and praise 
our own works as if we could attain heaven by them. 
For this should be the object for which they ought to 
appear; not that they should enable to blot out sins, 
to free from death, and to attain heaven, but to advance 
the interest and relieve the necessity of our neighbor. 

92. Thus they are both properly distinguished, that 
we may make as high and wide a difference between 
them, as heaven is from earth. For the works of God 
come hither from above, and give us pure, heavenly, 
eternal blessings ; but our works remain here below, and 
affect only what belongs to this terrestrial life and be- 
ing. Of this distinction, though so correct and clear, 
the gross Papists know nothing: they clamor a great 
deal about works, and know not what teaching or pro- 
hibiting good works is; they brew and mingle them up 
together, so that we cannot know what the works of 
God or our own are ; indeed the former are entirely dar- 
kened and unobserved, and human works are established 
in their place, while the true doctrine is every where 
perverted and mutilated. is 


BAPTISM. 65 


THE THIRD PART. 


93. Quite enough has now been said, both as to whnt 
is baptism, and as to its power and benefit. It remains 
to say something in reference to its use, and those whc 
receive it. For here there is a manifest distinc- 
tion, because all do not enjoy the same power and 
benefit of baptism, although they may have received 
the same baptism. For two kinds of people there are 
who receive it,—some with faith, some without faith. 
Consequently, although baptism is right mm itself, and 
the same to one as to another,—as goad, as holy, as divine 
tothe unbeliever as to him who believes: yet there is 
between these a great difference, for the unbehever can- 
not enjoy its power and benefit. ‘This is not the fault 
of baptism, but his own fault who did not receive and 
use it as he should. Ife is not a subject qualified or 
rtted to receive this secrement; for his heart is οἰοβοί. 
so that the efficacy of — να cannot enter it, and oper 
ate therem ; for he does rot desire or wish to have it. 

94, Just as it takes place among material objects. 
The blessed sun shines and gives light every where ; ard 
though every one does not see it, nor enjoy Hs warmth, 
yet it is the rea!, glorious sun, with its splendor and 
hght, its heat and its power, over him as much as 
over all others. Why then does he continue cold and 
dark? Certainly because he has shut the doors and 
windows, and he is neither able nor willing to see the 
sun. Thus is it also with the unbelieving heart. 
Though the true baptism has been duly received, the 
divine, the heavenly bath, and all that God has con- 
nected with it; yet because that heart did not believe 
nor wish to receive it, no benefit will be derived from i; 
not on account of its impotence or imperfection, but fe- 


66 BAPTISM. 


cause the recipient turns his back, and prevents its in- 
fluence from operating on his heart. 

95. So again, whoever believes that for him God 
has instituted in baptism a washing of regeneration, by 
which he is washed from sins, and becomes the child of 
(τος, receives it and finds it as he believed. For his 
heart 1s open, and the influence of baptism enters it 
with all its force, enlightens and warms him, and consti- 
tutes out of the old, inanimate man, a saint with a new 
principle of life. 

86. To this distinction Christ has also borne testi- 
mony tn these words: ‘ He that believeth and is bap- 
tized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be 
damned.’ For here he has expressed what benefit bap- 
tism affords, or what result it produces; and to this he 
adds how those should be qualified in whom it should 
accomplish its work, or what necessarily belongs to it, 
namely, faith, in order that it may be received beneficially. 

97. But it has already been remarked frequently, 
how we should use baptism, and how our faith should 
rest upon it incessantly, and be exercised as long as we 
live. Let it be sufficient at this time that we learn how 
to observe a proper distinction,—to which we have al- 
luded above, against those mistaken spinits,—that it is 
one thing to receive the right baptism, and another to 
enjoy its power and benefits; so that we may not deny 
and contemn baptism in itself, even if it is not received 
properly. As the Anabaptists do, who pretend that the 
baptism of Papists is altogether ineffectual, because it is 
both administered and received without faith; and that 
whoever is baptized by them must be baptized again. 
This error formerly disturbed many excellent Chris- 


tians, as I before remarked concerning St. Cyprian. 


BAPTISM. 67 


98. For, although we contend against the Papists 
about baptism and the Eucharist, yet we do not by this 
wish to assert that their baptism and Eucharist, which 
they administer according to the ordinance of God, are 
wrong and without efficacy ; but we censure their doc- 
trine, which is contrary to faith and the proper use of 
baptism, by which they strip it of all its efficacy, 
and pervert those who have been very properly bap- 
tized ; and so far as they are able, they suffer no one to 
hold it in its purity, since they always keep saying, “It 
is no longer beneficial after the chrism-cloth is soiled 
and the innocence is lost, but we must expiate our 
sins after receiving baptism, by our works of penitence 
and expiation ;’’ and thus they substitute our good works 
in the room of holy baptism, and create another bap- 
tism, not by water, but by works. And in this way, 
as said above, they have shamelessly assimilated bap- 
tism with their monkery and monastic life. 

99. Against this blasphemous and detestable doc- 
trine we preach and contend. But in doing this, we 
will not deny that baptism which we have received from 
them; but we pursue precisely a contrary course: in 
opposition to their adventitious doctrine of baptism by 
works, by which they nullify the baptism of Christ, we 
must bring again to its proper use this blessed baptism, 
which they received through the Apostles in the name 
of Christianity from Christ, so that its efficacy may 
again be understood and maintained. Like the Gospel 
and the holy Scripture, which they have duly received, 
but have darkened, falsified, and adulterated by their 
human opinions, we must cleanse and purify them again, 
and bring them to the light. This distinction the Ana- 


baptists do not observe, nor can they distinguish that 


68 BAPTISM. 


baptism which the Papists administer in the name of 
Christ, from their doctrine which they have conceived 
against baptism: but they condemn both the doctrine 
and baptism as nothing, and perfectly ineffectual, as if 
it were a mere human conception of their own, like 
their own opinions are; and thus they have removed 
baptism entirely from us. 

100. Now in order that we may defend baptism and 
the true doctrine, both against the Papists and the per- 
version of the Anabaptists, we must continually teach 
and support this distinction between the two,—that 
which is the work of God, and that which is ours. For 
when we speak about what baptism is, and about its 
benefits, then we are not speaking about our works. - 
For who will assert that he would have made or con- 
ceived, or even have known baptism, had net God him- 
self instituted it, and enjoined it upon us, much less that 
he could give it power and effect? Consequently what- 
ever there may be of its power or its nature, that 
is altogether and entirely the work of God, and we have 
nothing to do in it at all in this respect. And here we 
should not consider or enquire what we do, or do not 
do; but wherever we see it administered according to 
his word and command, we should by no means enter- 
tain a doubt, that he who is thus baptized, has received 
the proper baptism. But afterwards, if you have thus 
received it, you are bound to observe well how you be- 
lieve, and that you use your baptism rightly. This 
then may properly be spoken in reference to our own 
actions. In a word, these two, I say, baptism and 
faith, we should distinguish as far from each other as hea- 
ven is separated from earth; as far as God is exalted 
above man. ὡ; 


BAPTISM. 69 


101. For whatever he makes and does are works 
which are as steadfast, determinate, unchangeable, and 
eternal as himself. Consequently they stand and endure 
firmandimmovable, and will not change, although we may 
probably misuse them ineveryrespect. But whatever we 
do, is infirm and uncertain, as we ourselves are, so that 
we can ground or establish nothing upon 11. In order, 
therefore, that baptism may be permanent and certain 
to us, he has not established it upon our faith, because 
that itself is uncertain, and can very readily be false ; 
but he has established it upon his own word and ordi- 
nance, in order that it might be correct and might en- 
dure, and not become enfeebled and contemptible, even 
if faith do not attend it. 


102. According to this distinction every one can 
judge and confute every error which may spring up 
against baptism; as those who have been represented 
above as saying, ‘‘ Baptism is of no advantage, if it 
is administered by one who does not believe.” For 
this pretence has a very imposing appearance, and here- 
tofore has spread extensively, so as even to infest the 
great bishop and martyr, St. Cyprian. For here they 
have adduced that remark from Sirach: ‘ Whoever has 
an impure hand, what can he make clean? Whatever 
he touches becomes impure. Now whenever baptism is 
administered by a guilty priest or unbeliever, how can 
it cleanse him who receives it ?”’ 


103. But this is to establish baptism on the works 
ef men, and to render it entirely uncertain and vain. 
For had I to wait so long, until I became certain that 
he who was about to baptize was pure, neither I nor 
any man would ever be baptized ; indeed I must entirely 


70 ᾿ς BAPTISM. 


give up the Lord’s Prayer, where we are all taught to 
say, ““ Forgive us our trespasses.”’ 

104. Accordingly we may say, that we must not 
be so far deluded as to allow ourselves to look to, 
and to depend upon, our own worthiness or the 
purity of our own hands in this matter. For here 
we have another hand besides ours, namely, Christ’s, 
which is entirely pure and holy, and every thing that 
he touches, he makes holy and pure. He it is that 
makes and administers baptism; and all that is done 
in baptism is his work. Now because he, whose bap- 
tism it is, and who himself baptizes, continues ever pure, 
what then shall I enquire, if I and you and all men are 
impure? By this, Christ my Lord, and his blessed 
baptism, shall not be polluted for me. Just as the 
blessed sun does not become obscured or impure, because 
he shines upon the filth and the swamps as well as upon 
gold, but his beams fall as brilliant upon the heap of or- 
dure as they do upon the white veil; nor do they con- 
tract any impurity therefrom, notwithstanding they may 
penetrate even within the mass; so likewise, although 
baptism may be administered by an impure servant, nei- 
ther baptism nor we can receive any injury at all on that 
account, inasmuch as baptism and the office are not of 
man, but of Christ. 

105. And if we should be persuaded that the ordi- 
nance and command of God, cannot prevail, unless the 
person by whom it is administered be pure and without 
sins, no one must any longer preach or teach, or confide 
in or submit to, the word of God; for never yet did any 
one appear who was entirely pure, and who did not feel 
a necessity to pray in the language of the Lord’s Prayer. 
Indeed even children must be taught thus: “ Why will 


BAPTISM, 71 


you be obedient to your fatherand mother? are they either 
holyorpure?”’ And thusall lordsand princes would have 
~ to relinquish their offices, annul the lawsof civil obedience, 
or regard their own authority and jurisdiction as impure, 
because they, for the most part, are not pious men. 
Here would result a lovely government indeed! 

106. Hence you perceive that this is a very perni- 
cious error, and God must have supported the holy mar- 
tyr, St. Cyprian, in a most especial manner, and must 
have cleansed him from this error, through the blood of 
Christ the Lord. But still an injurious evil resulted 
from this false opinion. For thence the Anabaptists 
first arose, and now again they are becoming prevalent, 
so that countries and towns are infected with this evil, 
through its dangerous and delusive pretensions; as they 
insist, ‘‘ You did not believe when you were baptized ; 
and notwithstanding you may possibly have believed, 
yet the persons who administered baptism for you, were 
impure and godless ; consequently you must be baptized 
again.” .. 

107. Whoever, therefore, does not wish to be mis- 
led, let him adhere to this doctrine of ours; and then 
he shall be able to speak distinctly about it, and to say: 
“That I have been baptized is not my work, nor his 
who administered it; for it is not my baptism, nor that 
of the priest’s, nor of any man’s, but of Christ’s my 
Lord, and it does not need either my or your purity at 
all; for neither I nor any man can sanctify baptism and 
render it pure, but we shall all be sanctified and rendered 
pure by baptism. Wherefore I will not ground baptism 
upon my faith, but on the contrary, my faith shall 65- 
tablish and build itself upon baptism.”’ 

108, And I will suppose that the recipient, be he 


iF 
᾿ 
' 


72 BAPTISM. 


young or old, do not believe at all; as it may easily 
happen, that a Jew, to deceive us Christians, may suffer 
himself to be baptized; in this instance I should not 
assert, that his baptism is of no effect because he is an 
impostor and abuses baptism; but on the contrary I 
must maintain, that he has received the right baptism, 
though to his own injury and condemnation. In the 
same manner as I dare not say, whenever an unbeliever 
has blasphemed the name of God, that he has not blas- 
phemed the true God. So also, I dare not say, that 
the Gospel is not the true word of God, because he 
who preaches or hears 1t may happen to be an impostor? 
so even the truly venerable sacrament of the body and 
blood of Christ, was as really received by the traitor 
Judas as by St. Peter. For God does not change on 
account of us, and he will not suffer his word and work 
to be changed or enervated by our belief or unbelief. 
For this is certainly true that we, as for ourselves, are 
not pure, nor can we endure; so that if baptism 
would depend on our purity or faith, it would surely be 
a desperate case, and Satan would soon drag away our 
faith, and rum our baptism, and no one could ever 
be certain of it, or dare to put his confidence in ifs 
109. -And I would gladly hear from these Anabap=’ 
tists, what they would reply if one should ask, why 
they themselves baptize, since they reject our baptiin, 
and baptize the people over again who were baptized 
before, as they say, improperly ; and how they make 
themselves certain that their baptism ts correct? If 
they can establish this, ] will suffer myself to be bap- 
tized again, not once only, but as often as they please. 
““Yes,”’ say they, “formerly you were baptized, and 
knew not whether you had believed ; but now I baptize 


BAPTISM. 73 


you because you believe and know what you are doing.” 
110. But how do you know whether the person 
about to be baptized does believe now or not? ‘“ Be- 
cause,” say they, ‘‘he asserts his belief, and desires 
baptism.”’? ‘This is even building upon the former sandy 
foundation. For how are you certain that he does not 
deceive you by his acknowledgment? [5 it all sufficient 
merely that he assert it? In the same way any villain 
might easily assert it, and pretend that he believes; and 
if you depend upon this, I conclude against you by re- 
ference to the Scripture, where you read, that all men 
are false and deceptive, and that it is frequently forbid- 
den to trust man. Consequently your Anabaptism is 
not only uncertain to you, but is also forbidden and con- 
demned, because you would be basing a work, which 
belongs to the divine Majesty, upon men, and di- 
verting our faith and trust from God to a creature. 
But we would not build at all upon men, but upon 
the work of God, which is not only certain, infal- 
lible, and true, but, when it once takes place, endures 
and prevails forever; so that we dare not alter or re- 
new it, like the mutable works and characters of men. 
111. Of this take an example. The Patriarchs in 
the Old Testament had a baptism also. This was the 
Ten Commandments; as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 2, 
“They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud,” 
that is, upon the Ten Commandments. On this God 
made a coyenant with them through Moses, and still 
among them there were thousands who did not believe, 
but committed idolatry, blasphemed God, and excited 
seditions. Should people therefore have said: ‘“‘ Now 
the Ten Commandments are annulled, God must make 
others?” Or, when meat so abominably both into 


71 BAPTISM. 


adultery and murder, should he have said, “ The fifth 
and sixth commandments are repealed ; God must insti- 
tute others in their stead?” ‘Thus every hour he would 
have to institute a new Decalogue for the world. But 
in reality the commandments of God exist and endure 
forever, even if we fail, and do not observe them, and 
though all the world rush over them heedlessly to their 
ruin; yet these Commandments would not fail on that 
account; but the binding force and obligation to observe 
them would still remain. No matter how often and 
desperately by the permission of God, we may fall from 
them, we are under obligation always to adhere to them 
again; just as in his other ordinances. In the same 
way, the jurisdiction, authority, and lawful dominion of 
princes, are not impaired because a prince may happen 
to have many faithless and disobedient subjects in his 
dominions. 

112. Thus is it too with baptism, by which, when 
we have once received it, we are included and enrolled 
in the number of those who are to be saved, and God 
makes an eternal covenant of grace with us. This 
blessed baptism is not in vain because we may after- 
wards fall and commit errors; but just as grace endures 
and rules forever,—as remarked in the 117th Psalm, verse 
2, that even if we do fal], we may always return to it 
again, if only we do not reject it or strive against it,—- 
so baptism also endures evermore; and you cannot so 
far and fully depart from it, that you are neither able 
nor obliged to embrace it again. And there is no need 
for him to make you a new baptism, though you may 
not have believed. For it is, as observed, an eternal 
bath, wherein being once placed, we must forever re- 
main, or be eternally condemned. 


BAPTISM. 2 Φ 


113. Thus you perceive that the Anabaptists are 
blind, ignorant seducers, who understand nothing about 
the word and works of God, and doubly offend 
against holy baptism. In the first place, because they 
abuse and condemn true baptism by their doctrine; and 
in the second place, because they give no one any cer- 
tain baptism, and therefore in reality have no baptism, 
but their baptism is indeed rather a deceptive affair. 
Now so heinous and inveterate are their sins, that they 
deny and abuse the true baptism, and thereby draw 
upon themselves a terrible condemnation, for they are 
wilfully striving against the ordinance and work of God; 
and thus they rob themselves and others of this very 
baptism, and all the grace which 1s communicated by it. 

114. Let what has now been said be sufficient con- 
cerning this venerable sacrament of holy baptism, for 
the purpose of defending this true Christian doctrine 
and rational view of it, against the host of Satan, 
which he has set in hostile array against it, in order 
that he may banish baptism entirely, or rather indeed 
that he may rob people of its power and benefits. We 
have need now (since, by the grace of God, we possess 
the doctrine and use of baptism pure and unadulterated,) 
of a discourse treating especially of the fruits and re- 
sults of baptism. For of something of this kind a great 
necessity may be traced among us. 

115. I have often said that we must make a dis- 
tinction between the two, doctrine and course of life. 
For the parties, both of Anabaptists and Papists, fall off 
from the doctrine, and pervert either the natural char- 
acter of baptism, or indeed the proper use of it. But 
we who possess the Gospel, esteem and honor baptism 
as the work and ordinance of God, and, by the grace of 


70 BAPTISM., 


God, we do not sin against his doctrine and word. For 
it proceeds pure and unadulterated from the pulpit, and 
even in- practice, and accordingly we do baptize and 
suffer others to baptize. But we are censurable in this, 
that we do not follow the doctrine in our deportment. 
lor wherever doctrine and faith are correct, there the 
proper fruits of these should always follow, showing 
that we live worthy of our baptism, and thus proving 
that we have not received it in vain. For what advan- 
tage is it, if you possess the word and command of God, 
with a correct, clear understanding, and do nothing ac- 
cording to them? Hence, although we may not rail 
against baptism, yet if we do not show our faith, and 
live after the manner of one who has been baptized, 
it will be of no advantage to us. 

116. Yet these errors of life are widely different 
from those sins committed against doctrine. For 
here a remedy still remains, and our life may become 
better; but where the principles of doctrine are false,. 
there is neither help nor remedy for the improvement of 
life, but both are lost and desperate. For it happens 
in this as with a citizen, who may commit two kinds 
of offences against his government,—as, he may be 
disobedient to his superior, and act contrary to his com- 
mands, and in consequence incur the punishment due to 
disobedience ; but still he may acknowledge that he has 
acted improperly in this particular. By this it so hap- 
pens, that we can draw a distinction between the two, 
Jus et Factum, authority and obedience to authority, 
or as we here call them, doctrmme and life. For 
still this insubordinate or disobedient subject acknowl- 
edges the law, and allows the command. But if he 
should proceed farther, oppose the command, resist 


ee ΒΟ 


BAPTISM. ΨῚ 


the law, and deny that he had done wrong, and 
should, moreover, even defend his error; this wouid 
be entirely a different thing, and would constitute, 
not merely an act of disobedience or of insubordination 
to law, but a sedition and a violation of injured majesty ; 
as one who audaciously sets himself up against supreme 
authority, and disregarding existing law, would make 
his-own judgment the law. ‘To this crime would be- 
long no ordinary punishment indeed,—it would even 
seem that the earth should open under such a being, 
and swallow him as it did Korah, Dathan, and Ab:iraz, 
Num. 16, 32. 

117. For the world cannot bear that sins should 
be called sins, but it would have them called rectitude 1:- 
self, to pass unpunished, and to be approved and admired. 
As our pious Papists are acting at this very time, who 
knowingly persecute the acknowledged truth of the Gos- 
pel, and by force wish to defend their godless conduct, as 
they presumptuously assail God in his declarations, and 
say, ‘* What he says shall not prevail, but what we say 
and do, should be called right; that his word and com- 
mand must not prevail until they please us.” This is τὸ 
thrust God from his throne, and to set themselves in the 
place of Supreme Majesty itself. ‘The faction of Ana- 
baptists act thus also in reference to holy baptism, since 
they strive obstinately against the ordimance of God, and 
contrive something else of their own inits stead. Surely 
no moderate or temporary punishment awaits this crime, 
but Satan himself and the fires of hell. 

118. From such guilt may God continue to defend 
us, even as he is now doing. For with them there can 
be no grace or pardon, since they obstinately resist ir. 
But because we have the privilege of enjoying a true Goc- 


78 BAPTISM. 


trine among us, we should therefore pay strict atten- 
tion, and direct our life according to its precepts, 
and not abuse tis grace, nor let it pass in vain: but 
since we have died unto sin by baptism, and have 
become new men, we should henceforth as new-born 
individeals walk in newness of life, as St. Peter 
observes, 1 Epis. 2, 1, and Paul, Rom. 6, 4, by which 
people may trace in our lives that we have received bap- 
tism usefully and to our salvation. 

119. For here we may perceive how Satan who is 
among us, struggles, not to prevent baptism from being 
duly administered, but to prevent its being attended 
with any good result. For, though we have at- 
tained grace without our own works and rectitude 
of life, having obtained true baptism, yet we should 
henceforth so conduct ourselves as to our words and 
actions and our whole course of life, that we may 
honor and adorn this sacrament. For the baptismal 
font, the altar, and the pulpit, are intended always to 
remind us of this, and to afford a lasting memorial that 
we are baptized and are Christians; and that we may re- 
fiect, honor the blessed font, and live in such a man- 
ner as always to dare to look upon it joyfully; and 
not let it stand as a witness against us. 

120. But now very many, alas! conduct themselves 
as if they might always remain under the same old char- 
acter, living just as they desire, and thus render this 
most excellent baptism of theirs a mere cover for shame 
and disgrace, as if they had been called to the kingdom 
of grace in order that they should have the privilege of 
doing whatever they wish; and they console themselves, 
however, with believing that God will be gracious, and 
excuse themselves thus: “I am a frai! man; God will 


BAPTISM. 79 


continue to overlook it, and to forgive me,’ &c. No, 
not so, beloved brother; I have not pointed out that 
course to you, that baptism would confer upon you a li- 
cense to sin; but the leaf must now be turned; on this 
account your sins are absolved, and you are now come 
to grace,—you who were before without grace in conse- 
quence of sin,—in order that you may now lead a diifer- 
ent life and cease from sin. ‘These do not correspond 
with each other,—to be baptized and to remain in sin. 
For baptism is administered with the very design of tak- 
ing away sins, in order that man may become virtucus, 
and increase in good works; that whereas, before this 
time, he was disobedient, revengeful, envious, faithless, 
and incontinent, he may repress these feelings, and re- 
cur to the Lord’s Prayer, and henceforth repent and 
earnestly strive that he may be obedient, patient, and 
virtuous. If you do not act thus, think not that your 
situation is secure, and think not to boast much of 
the grace of Christ, and by it to excuse your sins. 

121. This would be an excellent test: if you find 
yourself so much improved, that, in a year or two, or 
some indefinite period, and not so frequently as before, 
you have failed but once or twice, or indulged some feeling 
of anger or revenge through error or infirmity, thischange 
may be viewed as a token of good in you, and you may 
again be reinstated. But always to remain and persist in 
the old course, with anger, impatience, and envy, proves 
that youhave received your baptism to great disadvantage. 

122. So, if you had been an adulterer, a libertine, a 
miser, baptism would show you that you must no longer 
commit violence, adultery, indulge your avarice, steal 
orrob. Your former offences are forgiven and extinct, 
and in future you must become a different being, a pious, 


a ——— μος 


80 BAPTISM. 


righteous, beneficent, and continent man. If you find 
this kind of life and feeling attending you a considerable 
time, it is a sign that baptism has exerted a proper in- 
fluence upon you. And if it should happen that you 
would err in one instance or two, it might be deemed 
merely a failure or inadvertence, you may hope for 
grace and forgiveness; but not that you should con- 
tinue and persist in such errors, and always be say- 
ing, ‘* What can I make of it? I cannot abandon it ; 
there is still some grace and pardon,” ὅς. This he 
will not suffer. For in this way you do nothing but 
kindle the wrath of God, and always keep departing 
farther from grace, until you have entirely lost it, and 
at last, as a punishment, commit the enormous crime 
of rejecting and defaming baptism, like the miserable 
rabble of Satan. 

123. Accordingly keep your actions always before 
you, and observe how they correspond with baptism ; 
and be assured that, although you have been called and 
placed into the kingdom of grace, and have been made 
by Christ a partaker of all that Christians possess ; yet 
if you remain as you were before, it will all be of no 
advantage to you, because you do not honor your bap- 
tism, and keep it in purity; and you may be called a 


‘Christian indeed, but you have assuredly forsaken 


Christ’; sin is your lord; you are serving the devil, and 
you possess nothing more than the name and appearance 
of Christianity, by which you are deceiving yourself, 
and accomplishing your own ruin. For, as I have ob- 
served, he has given this blessed baptism and the Eucha- 
rist, not only in order that he may forgive and wash away 
sins by it, but he intends by this means daily to keep 


expelling and blotting those out which may still con- 


BAPTISM. 81 


tinue to linger behind, that the disposition and nature 
of man may become entirely changed, fitted, and adapted 
to every good work. And wherever it has been pro- 
perly received, it will assuredly be found, that the sins 
of that individual are daily departing and becoming less. 
In him who has not properly received it, the contrary 
will appear: that he has assumed this wedding garment, 
but keeps unseemly filth beneath it, by which he stains 
and destroys its purity and beauty. 

124. For it is our duty, if we would enjoy divine 
grace, that we esteem and honor baptism as a most pre- 
cious treasure. Now this is the beauty and the orna- 
ment, that we live irreproachable ; as St. Paul teaches, 
Tit. 2, 10, that servants and those of other condition, 
should live in such a manner, as to honor the divine 
doctrine inevery thing. In what manner? In this: ΠΕΙ- 
ther to be faithless nor dishonest, but obedient. ‘This 
is. the beautiful garland which adorns baptism, and ren- 
ders it a most excellent honor and praise to every one, 
and furnishes an evidence to us, that we have received 
‘it profitably, and are true Christians. On the contrary 
whoever does not conduct himself in his station as he 
should, abuses and dishonors both his own doctrine and 
his baptism, and furnishes an evidence against himself 
that he is not worthy of grace, and is nothing more 
than a blemish and stain among Christians, as St. Peter 
calls such a man, 1 Peter 2. 

125. Wherefore let us endeavor with sincerity and 
ardor, that we also may be found among those who 
adorn and honor this exalted treasure by their lives and 
actions. Let us cheerfully boast of it before God 
and all the world, and never be ashamed, or else it 
may happen to us as to others, who have lost their 


89 BAPTISM. 


blessed baptism, and found every thing which they have 
taught or done, or which they are still teaching or doing, 
to be vain, and indeed even pernicious; so that it is seven 
times more deplorable with them than before. And be- 
cause they have failed to secure this treasure, it is justly 
imposed upon them as a punishment, that they must now 
bedeluded by every false doctrine; and as they have deter- 
mined not to honor this blessed baptism by real good 
works, they must now exert and plague themselves with 
pretended good works, and do every thing that the devil 
by his delusions will have done. ‘Thus it may happen 
with us also, if we do not be prayerful and vigilant, 
that we may not lose this precious treasure of the word 
and of this salutary institution. For he who has given it 
can easily permit it to be taken away again, as this is a 
result which the devil desires and strives with all dili- 
gence to accomplish. 

126. This we have briefly said by way of admoni- 
tion. For we must urge two kinds of argument, to 
controvert false doctrine and to punish sins, that both 
our doctrine and our conduct may proceed in harmony* 
together. Amen. 


A LETTER 
ANABAPTISM, 


BY 


DR. MARTIN LUTHER. 


A. Ὁ. 1528. 


A LETTER : 
eh 


- 
ON 


i τὰ | τ 
ANABAPTIS 4H, 


το 
TWO CLERGYMEN, 
EY 


_ DR. MARTIN LUTHER. 


~ 


Martin Luther to the esteemed and reverend N. and N. Grace and 
peace be unto you, my beloved friends, in Christ our Lord! 


ῳῷ 


1. Beloved Sirs: I am not unaware, alas! that Bal- 
thesaur Htibmohr, in his blasphemous book on Anabap- 
tism, has introduced my name among others, as if 1 also 
had adopted his absurd opinions. But I have consoled 
my -self with the reflection, that no one, whether friend 
or foe, will credit his notorious falsehoods; because ποῖ 
only my conscience is secure on this point, but the re- 
port also concerning me is sufficiently invalidated by 
numerous sermons, and more especially by the last Pos- 
tils, from Epiphany to Easter, in which I have made a 
full declaration of my belief concerning infant baptism. 

2. Ideemed it unnecessary, AS ης to answer such | 
a book ashis. For who can stop the mouths ofall men? — 


80 ON ANABAPTISM. 


yea, we may say, of all devils? I have long been con- 
vinced by experience, that when I stop one mouth for the 
devil, ten others will be opened in its stead, and the longer 
he exercises his malignity, the more it increases ; so that, 
after I have spoken the truth, I must, willing or unwil- 
ling, commit it to God, who is a true judge, and knows 
very well how to terminate these difficulties ; as we may 
easily perceive in his daily dispensations. Here, in the 
territory of our prince, we are as yet free from the pol- 
lutions of such ministers,—honor and praise be to God 
forever !—and likewise from the enemies of the sacra- 
ment, and remain quite undisturbed and harmonious in 
doctrine, faith, and life. May God, in future, thus 
graciously protect us! Amen. 

ὁ. For my own part, indeed, I have, therefore, spent 
few thoughts concerning the Anabaptists, because it 
was unnecessary. But you Papists, (I must call you 
SO, since you will remain under your tyrant,) it is ser- 
ving you perfectly right; inasmuch as you will not tol- 
erate the Gospel, you are necessarily involved with these 
satanic sects, as Christ declares, John 5, 43: “1 am 
come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if 
another shall come in his own name,”’ that is, one like 
yourselves, “ him ye will receive.” Yet it is not right, 
and I am truly sorry, that any one should so miserably 
murder, burn, and cruelly destroy people so distressed } 
yea, every one should be permitted to believe what he 
desires to believe. If he believe wrong, he will have 
sufficient punishment in the everlasting fire of hell. 
Why then should he endure temporal torture also, pro- 
vided he errs in faith only, and is not otherwise rebel- 
lious, or in other respects resists government? Gracious 
God! how easily may any one err, and fall into the 


ON ANABAPTISM. 97 


snares of the devil! With the Scriptures and the word 
of God, they should be opposed and restrained ; with fire, 
httle will be accomplished. 

4. Ido not yet, however, rightly know what reason 
or ground they have for their faith; neither have you 
informed me, and yet you desire advice how a person 
should act in such perplexities. Consequently on this 
I can give no positive answer. Moreover, you your- 
selves are in part also Anabaptists. For many of you 
baptize those in Latin again, who have been baptized in 
German, while at the same.time your Pope himself neither 
adopts nor teaches this practice. For we are well assured 
that the Pope sanctions baptism, when, in cases of neces- 
sity, it has been administered by women, even if they bap- 
tizein German. Yet you baptize those again who were 
baptized by us in German; as if the administration of bap- 
tism in German by our ministers were not as good as the 
baptism of womenin German; evenasthat bigotted super- 
intendent of Letpsic has lately done at Muhlhausen, not- 
withstanding the Pope has nowhere commanded that we 
should baptize in Latin only, and not in other languages. 
Therefore again it is serving youright. If you will re- 
baptize, you will have Anabaptistsenough. These yeu 
will not tolerate, and yet wish to be such yourselves, in 
opposition to your own teacher and master, the Pope. 

5. But I shall now desist from mentioning how in- 
consistently some of your ministers act by rebaptizing ; 
for your shame is the greater because you strive directly © 
against your idol, the Pope himself, by your practice of 
anabaptism: and thus teachers and pupils do not coincide. 
I shall, therefore, not treat this subject more fully at pres- 
ent, but shall, for the purpose of serving you, become a 
Papist again, and quietly act the hypocrite with the Pope. 


eae ee ee —— lite taal 


. ὗς ON ANABAPTISM. 


For my beloved enthusiasts will certainly not interpret 
if otherwise for me, (as they are prompt in doing,) but to 
say I am acting the sycophant towards the Pope, and 
seeking his favor; since whoever does not follow their 
foolish fanaticism, must be called a new pope. 

6. In the first place, Γ hear and see that this practice 
of anabaptism is designed by some for the purpose of insult- 
ing the Pope, as if they would have nothing of Antichrist ; 
precisely as the enemies of the Eucharist wish also to 
believe in mere bread and wine, in order to displease 
the Pope, and expect by this means they will completely 
overthrow Popery. This is indeed a loose foundation, 
on which they will build nothing good. In this manner 
they must also deny all the holy Scripture, and the office 
of the ministry. For certainly we have all this from 
the Pope, and we would also have to make a new holy 
Scripture. Thus we must, in like manner, abandon 
the Old Testament, so as to receive nothing from 
the unbelieving Jews. Why then do they daily take 
money and property, which, however, wicked people,— 
the Pope and the Turks, or heretics,—have had? ‘This 
likewise they should not do, if they would have nothing 
that is good from wicked people. 

7. This is all foolishness. Christ also discovered 
among the Jews the abuses of the Pharisees and Scribes; 
but he did not, therefore, reject all that they held and 
taught, Matt. 23, 3. But we confess, that in Popery 
there is much Christian good, yes, all Christian good ; 
and we confess also that from thence it has descended to us: 
we acknowledge, namely, that the true holy Scripture, 
the true baptism, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true 
keys of the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the 
ministry, the true catechism, as the Ten Commandments, 


ON ANABAPTISM. Ὁ 89 


the articles of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, exist in 
Popery. Even as the Pore also, on the other hand, ac- 
knowledges that the Scripture, baptism, the keys, the 
catechism, are among us (although he condemns us as 
heretics) and all heretics. O how hypocritically you 
act here! How then do I act the hypocrite? 1 assert 
what the Pope has in common with us. So m return 
he acts the hypocrite equally as much with us and the 
heretics, in acknowledging what we have in common with 
him. I shall dissemble more still, and yet it will bene- 
ft me nothing. I say that true Christianity, yes, the 
true prince of Christianity, and many pious and eminert 
saints, are under the dominion of the Pope. Shall 1 
cease dissembling ? 

8. Hear for yourselves what St. Paul says, 2 Thes. 
2,4: Antichrist will © sit in the temple of God.” Now 
if the Pope be, as I verily believe, the true Antichrist, 
then he must not δὲ or rule in the devil’s stall, but ἐπ 
the temple of God. No, he will not sit where there is 
nothing but devils and infidels, or where there is neither 
Christ nor Christianity; for he is to be an Antichrist. 
He must, therefore, be among Christians. And since 
he is to sit and to rule there, he must have Christians 
under him. The temple of God, indeed, is not a pile of 
stones, but the holy Christian church, 1 Cor. 3, 17, over 
which he shall rule. 

9. Now, if Christianity is under the dominion of the 
Pope, it must in truth be the body and members of 
Christ. If it is his body, it has the right spirit, Gospel, 
faith, baptism, Eucharist, keys, office of the ministry, 
prayer, holy Scripture, and all that Christianity should 
have. We are in like manner all under Popery still, 
and derive these Christian blessings from it. For he 


tne 


ΘΌ ON ANABAPTISM. 


persecutes us, he curses us, he excommunicate? us, he 
banishes us, burns us, murders us, and reats us poor’ 
Christians as a real Antichrist would treat the Christian 
church. Now, certainly such Christians must be rightly 
baptized, and be true members of Christ, else they σοῦ 
not achieve such a victory against Antichrist in death. 

10. We donot act so fanatically as those factious spir- 
its; we do not reject al] that is under the dominion of the 
Pope ; for thus we should also have to reject the Chris- 
tian church, the temple of Christ, with all that it de- 
rives from him. But we assail and reject the fact, that 


the Pope will not rest satisfied with those blessings of 


the Christian church, which he has inherited from the 
Apostles; but he presumes to add to them his diabolical 
innovations, and empley these blessings, not to the im- 
provement of the temple of God, but to its destruction, 
causing his own authority to be esteemed more highly than 
theinjunctionof Christ. From this destruction, however, 
Christ still preserves his church, even as he protected Lot 
at Sodom; as St. Peter declares concerning this matter, 2 
Pet. 2,6,7. So that both remain,—Antichrist sitting 
in the temple of God through the working of Satan, 2 
Thes. 2, 4, 9, and the temple of Ged still bemg and 
continuing to be the temple ef God, through the preser- 
vation of Christ. If the Pope can tolerate and receive 
this dissimulation, I am certainly a submissive son and a 
pious Papist, I will truly be so with a joyful heart, and 
cheerfully revoke all that I have otherwise done to 
injure him. 

11. The assertions, therefore, of these Anabaptists 
and enthusiasts, amount to nothing, when they say 
that whatever the Pope maintains is wrong; or, that 
hecause this or that practice is indulged in Popery, we 


ON ANABAPTISM. 91 


must have it changed. Precisely as if they wished by 
this means to approve themselves great enemies to Anti- 
christ ; but they do not perceive that in this way they 
are giving him strength in the highest degree, seriously 
weakening the Christian religion, and deceiving them- 
selves. ‘Ihey should help us in putting down these 
abuses and innovations; but in doing this, they would 
reap but little honor, as they conceive, because they 
could not be the leaders in this enterprize. Hence they 
begin something which had not been attempted by any 
one else, in order that they may also perhaps be leaders, 
and receive honor. But their honor must be brought te 
shame; for they assail the temple of God, and miss the 
Antichrist enthroned there; like blind men, who, in 
groping after water, thrust their hands in the fire. 

12. Yes, they act as a man once acted towards his 
brother, in the torest of ‘Thuringia. While passing to- 
gether through this forest, they were assailed by a bear ; 
one of them being overpowered, the other endeavored to 
afford assistance, and stabbed at the bear, but missing 
his object, miserabiy wounded his prostrate brother. 
Precisely such is the conduct of these enthusiasts. It 
is their duty to assist the poor Christian church which 
Antichrist has under him, and which he tortures; and 
they set themselves feartully in opposition tu the Pope, 
but miss him, and lacerate the Christian church, which 
is under the Pope, still more cruelly. For if they would 
leave baptism and the tucharist unimpaired, Christians 
under the Pope might still escape with their souls, and 
be saved, as hitherto has been the case. But now, since 
the sacraments are withdrawn from these Christians, 
they must be lost indeed, because Christ himself is 
thus also taken away. Beloved, we should not assail 


92 ON ANABAPTISM. 


the Pope in so rash and inconsiderate a manner, be- 
cause there are saints of Christ under his jurisdiction. 
A cautious and discreet spirit is required for this pur- 
pose, which can allow the temple of God to remain under 
the Pope, and only restrain the innovations by which he 
destroys that temple. 

13. In the second place, they are said to sus- 
tain themselves on the assumption, that they remember 
nothing in reference to their baptism, and demand: 
‘‘ How do you know that you are baptized? You be- 
lieve men who tell you that you are baptized; but you 
must believe God himself and not men, and thus be cer- 
tain of your baptism.’ This is, in my estimation, a 
loose and futile assuinption indeed. For if I would re- 
ject all that [ have not seen or heard myself, I should 
retain little indeed,—neither faith nor love, spiritual or 
temporal. With the same propriety I might also say: 
“ Beloved, how do you know that this man is your fa- 
ther, and this woman your mother? You must not be- 
lieve men, but be certain of your birth.’”’ In this way 
all children would henceforth be at liberty to violate, at 
least they would be under no obligation to keep, the com- 
mandment of God, when he says: ‘‘ Thou shalt honor 
thy father and thy mother.” For I would immediately 
say: ‘* HowdoI know which are my father and mother? 
I do not believe men; I must therefore be born afresh, 
so that I may see it for myself, or I will not honor them.” 
Thus the commandment of God would be wholly and lit- 
erally abolished by such reasoning. 

14. In like manner, I would own no brother, sister, 
uncle, or other relative; I would always contend that I 
did not know whether they are related to me or not, be- 
cause 1 would be uncertain who might be my parents, 


ON ANABAPTISM. 93 


But an individual of such a disposition, I would, if I were 
lord of the land, treat in return according to his sceptical 
spirit. I would prohibit him from expecting, receiving, 
or holding any legacy, house, residence, or receiving a 
single farthing from his parents; and in this manner I 
would retort upon him in his own belief, until this spirit 
would be softened again. For if he would be disposed 
not to know or believe his parents, he should also not 
know or believe any thing ahout their possessions. Ὁ 
what a fine, what an admirable government there would 
be here in the world, where no one would be the child, 
brother, sister, uncle, friend, heir, or neighbor of another. 
There is no more virtue among such Christians, than 
among the wild wolves. 

15. And besides, in this way, I would be subject to 
no prince or lord; I would pretend that I did not know 
whether he was born a prince or not, because I hap- 
pened not to have witnessed the fact with my own eyes, 
but have only heard it from the people. And conse- 
quently, I would again be in the liberty of nature; I would 
abolish the command of God, and have no government, 
but 20 from the people among the wolves, where the com- 
mand of God to honor parentsand government, has no in- 
fluence. And indeed, it seems plain, that this is what the 
devil desires in these Anabaptists, from the fact that 

they already, as it is said, forsake wife and children, 
house and residence, and simply wish to go to heaves 
alone. More of this hereafter. : 

16. Yes, I would in like manner assert, that the holy 
Scriptures are a fiction, that Christ is a fiction, that the 
Apostles have never preached ; for I have not witnessed 
the giving of the Scriptures, or seen Christ, or heard the 
Apostles preach; I have only heard of these things from 


νυν ΑΝ ΝΣ ΨΥ 


94 ON ANABAPTISM. 


men. Therefore, I will not believe them, unless they 
are given, exhibited, and proclaimed afresh before my 
eyes. Thus I would be entirely and perfectly free, even 
from all the cominandments of God. ‘To this extent I 
would go, says the devil, if I could. This is the foun- 
dation of Anabaptism, upon which no institution either . 
in heaven or on earth could continue to exist. 

17. But you say: “ Did you yourself not teach that 
we should believe God alone, and not men?’ Surely, 
in this manner, you might easily smite me with my own 
sword. But since you are so captious indeed, I will ask 
you again, whether we should be obedient to God, when 
he commands us to honor our parents and superiors ? 
If you answer in the affirmative, I reply, how do you 
know which they are, if you will not believe men at all? 
How stand you now? Your difficulty, I perceive, con- 
sists in the fact that you will not understand what is 
meant by believing men, and thus you rush thought 
lessly along, as the enthusiasts are accustomed to do. 
Hearken therefore: 

18. When we teach that we should not believe men, 
we certainly mean men alone, in and of themselves, and 
not in connection with God ; that is, when they declare 
on their own authority, as men, independent of the word 
and authority of God, whatever they conceive, and 
when they cannot prove their declarations, either by the 
words or institutions of God. For who would call that 
the doctrine of men, which God has revealed through 
men? And who would assert, that to believe in such a 
doctrine would be believing in menand notin God? For 
St. Paul, Col. 2, 23, censures the doctrine of men, be- 
cause they teach what they have never seen; that is, 
what they assert is only imagined, and cannot be proved 


ON ANABAPTISM. 95 


by any divine declaration or work. Therefore when 
you hear, that we should not believe men, you must 
understand that in this case there is no divine word, no 
divine authority accompanying the declaration, but that 
it is a mere human figment; so that you can easily distin- 
guish, agreeably to the words, between the act of be- 
heving men and that of believing God. 

19. Now observe; your birth is an event which does 
not take place in a secret manner; nor has it originated 
from the arrangement of men, but it is the arrangement of 
God, a work openly manifested, which can be contradict- 
ed by noone. And if anyone should undertake to contra- 
dict it, as the Jews did the miracles of Christ, his objection 
would be unavailing. For the veracity of those who 
see and witness this divine, this public event, would gain 
the ascendency any how, and stop his mouth with the 
fact and the truth. For here the declaration of God 
finds a strong application, ‘“‘ That at the mouth of two 
witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the 
matter be established,’? Deut. 19, 15. Such persons 
we must undoubtedly believe; for they bear testimony 
to the power of God, namely, your birth, and prove 
that it comes from your parents. Moreover, no one takes 
care of you except your parents; nor does any one defend 
and labor for you, but your parents only. And thus 
the providence of God is so openly displayed, that 
no one can contradict it; not even a devil, but every one 
knows and confesses it with as much certainty, as he ac- 
knowledges that you live. 

20. This, you perceive, is not believing men, but it 
is believing God ; for the providence of God is testified to 
you. And in short, wherever this providence is shown 
and proved to you, and not imagined by men, and where it 


- 


96 ON ANABAPTISM, 


is contradicted, moreover, neither by men nor devils; 
there you believe God and not men. For it is the power 
of God, which he exerts so openly, that even the devil 
cannot oppose it. 

21. But the fact that some children are at times con- 
cealed and sent away, and do not with certainty know 
their parents during life, does not in any way conflict with 
this view of the subject ; for here we speak of the common 
public providence of God. But such children are begot- 
ten dishonorably, in secret, and in opposition to the di- 
vine arrangement of Providence: it is no wonder, then, 
if they find themselves in a different condition. And as 
they are begotten in secrecy, so they may likewise be 
ignorant of their secret parents. What the devil does, 
is done in darkness, and in darkness it may remain: but 
the providence of God proceeds in the light of day. 

22. Now, if you ask me, why I believe that this 
man and this woman are my parents, I answer, first, that 
I feela conscious conviction that Iam a manandacreature 
of God, and that I must undoubtedly have a father and a 
mother, for I did not spring out of a rock, since God said 
toman: ‘ Be fruitful and multiply,”’ Gen. 1, 28. Hence 
we must conclude, that all mankind come from man and 
woman ; that is, have father and mother. ‘This he also 
confirms by his commandment, where he says to every 
person: “‘ Honor thy father and mother,’”? Exodus 20, 
12. Christ as the Son of God, is reasonably excepted 
in these cases. Since, then, it is certain that I have 
human parents, and that I did not grow on a tree, I am 
constrained, secondly, to believe further, that the man 
and the woman who are pointed out to me by men, are 
really my parents, by the declaration, Deut.19,15: “At 
the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three wit- 


ON ANABAPTISM. OF 


nesses, Shall the matter be established.”’ By this decla- 
ration God compels me to believe these people. 

23. Thirdly, this too depends upon the providence of 
God, that no one in all the world takes care of me in his 
own name, as of a natural child, except those two per- 
sons, or, if they be dead, their friends or pious individuals 
iatheirname. And all this remains secure from the con- 
tradiction of devils and of men, like any other public insti- 
tution of God. For neither the world nor the devil ean 
oppose the public institutions of God; nor would it avail, if 
they would undertake it. But the word of God, the effect 
of which is not yet manifest, he may oppose successfully. 

24. So my reason for believing a certain individual 
to be my prince and lord, is because, in the first place, 
the word of God says: ‘‘ Let every soul be subject unto 
the higher powers,’ Rom. 13, 1. From this I fnfer 
that I must have a sovereign, fue be a subject. in the 
second place, because all the world testify and say that 
this individual is the prince; because they all regard hin 
as such, and no one denies his authority to be one of the ar- 
rangemients of God, I must believe their testimony. And 
ifit were contradictéd by any one, that contradiction σου] 
have no lasting force; for all would ultimately say, “Itis 
false.”? In the third place, the ordinary providence of God 
attends me here, because no one else receivesmeas hissub- 
ject; I live in peace under his care, protection, and laws, as 
ourcondition should be ina wholesomegovernment. And 
all other governments permit me to live under that gov- 
ernment, without interrupting me or saying any thing 
against it, if I dwell there publicly, by right and by divine 
arrangement. For robbers and murderers may dwell in a 
foreign dominion, sécretl¥ andclandestinely ; but certainly 
they are not recognised as une of that governmcst. 


9S ON ANABAPTISM. 


25. ‘Stop,’ yousay, “ how will you reconcile this 7 
Why, then, do you not believe that the Pope is your lord, 
but make Antichrist of him, when indeed the whole world 

testify that he is the head of the Christian church, and 
even prove it to you by the fact; for he undoubtedly 
sits in power??? Well, indeed, this does look like a con- 
tradiction. But let me tell you,—whenever you can 
show me these three points in Popery, which I show you 
in reference to parents and government, I will acknow]l- 
edge Popery an institution of God, willingly submit, and 
believe this institution of God. But if you cannot do this, 
then, beloved, let us consider it a human fiction, which 
is not sanctioned by the word and authority of God, and 
by no means to be believed. But the fact that it is a 
human fiction, I will prove very forcibly. 

26. First, the word of God tells me that there are 
parents, and that there is a government ; that i must 
necessarily have parents, and tnust live under govern= 
ment; as we have already said. But there is no word of 

God, which says there is a pope, and that I must havea 
pope, or be subject to a pope. Now since the Scriptures 
sive no command in reference to the Pope or his govern- 
ment, there can be no Popery which is a divine institu- 
tion; for the Scriptures bear testimony of the institutions 
of God. Hence I have previously said, that we should 
believe men, if they testify and show, not their own fic- 
tions and institutions, but the words and institutions of 
God. For ante questionem, quid est, oportet ques- 
tionem, st est, definere. Before any one teaches me 
who the Pope is, he must first convince me that there is 
a Pope by divine appointment. But if there can be no 
Pope, no one will inquire who he 15. 

27. Secondly, although many persons testify of him, 


ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. 99 


yet their testimony is not only vain, because it cannot 
inake an institution of God out of Popery, or prove it to 
be divine, but it is also insufficient and imperfect. For 
hitherto Popery has been protested and exclaimed against, 
not only by the whole Christian community in the East, 
but also by many of the Pope’s own subjects; some of 
whom have. already been burned on that account, and 
others still are. daily subjected to capital punishment ; 
so that his government has never been universally ac- 
knowledged and left unmolested; it never has attained 
a peaceable position, as we have shown to be the case 
with parental authority and civil government. 

28. Thirdly, there is lixewise no institution of God 
under the Pope; for he performs no duty to benefit his 
subjects; nay, he persecutes the Gospel and the Chris- 
tians; nog te. mention that he ought to teach them, and 
administer to their spiritual welfare. He teaches in- 
deed his own infectious abominations, namely, the doc- 
trines of men; he permits the Gospel to lie neglected, 
yes, he. suppresses. it, even while he finds this suppres- 
sion of no, benefit to him. Out of the Eucharist, he 
makes, a sacrifice ; out of works, faith; and out of faith, 
works. He forhids marriage, meats, times, places, and 
apparel; he perverts and abuses every Christian blessing, 
to the injury of souls. All these facts we have else- 
where sufficiently proved. Since, then, all these three 
points cannot be found in Popery, we must regard it as 
a mere human device, which is by no means to be 
trusted, and in no way to be compared with the parental 
and civil relations. 

29. First, baptism is a work of God, which no 
man has devised, but God has commanded and tes- 
tified it in the Gospel. Secondly, there are indi- 


Υ  σσρσρσΠσΠτρ»ττσ---ῤ-ρ-  ὌἝΝΦήἭοστο τ) ὔΉΌ ΙΝ ΙΝ 


100 ON ANABAPTISM. 


viduals who testify that you are baptized, and no one 
contradicts it, or attempts to prove the contrary. 
Thirdly, you have a further evidence, in being reck- 
oned among the number of Christians, and permitted 
to approach the Eucharist, and to use and enjoy every 
Christian privilege,— privileges which would not be gran- 
ted, if you had not been baptized, or if there were any un- 
certainty of your baptism. All this is pure evidence of 
your baptism; and all the world knows and sees that 
we baptize every one while yet a child. Now, who- 
ever would not believe all this testimony, would act as 
if he did not believe God himself, since God says that 
we shall believe two witnesses. And these witnesses 
he never punishes, while he permits no false witness to 
pass with impunity and without disgrace. 

30. Hence I consider our proof abundantly strong, 
that no one can entertain a doubt in reference to his 
baptism, as if he knew not whether he 15 baptized 
or not, and that he who will not believe this fact, sins 
against God. For the evidence of Christians affords 
him more certainty with respect to his baptism, than 
his own observation could, because Satan might easily 
so confuse his mind, as to cause him to think that it was 
only a dream or an apparition,—that he was not really 
baptized,—and he would nevertheless have to depend on 
the evidence of Christians to satisfy himself; which evi- 
dence the devil cannot thus confound or render dubious. 

31. In the third place, it issaid and 1 have also read 
it, that the Anabaptists ground themselves upon this dec- 
laration: ‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be 
saved,’ Mark 16, 16. From these words they wish 
to conclude, that we must baptize no one, unless he first 
believes. Here, I say, they take upon themsel,es a very 


ON ANABAPTISM. 101 


great presumption. For if they would follow that con- 
clusion, they must not baptize before they know with 
certainty, that the individual to be baptized believes. 
But how and when will they ever know this? Have 
they become gods, that they can look into the heart, to 
ascertain whether men believe or not? Now, if they 
do not know whether men believe or not, why then do 
they baptize, since they contend so earnestly that faith 
must exist previous to baptism? In this matter do they 
not act directly in opposition to themselves, by baptiz- 
ing When they do not know whether the person to be 
baptized believes or not? For he who suspends baptism 
on faith, and baptizes at a venture, not being certain 
whether faith exists, does no better than he who 
baptizes without faith; for unbelief and uncertain faith 
are much alike, and both are contrary to this passage, 
“ He that believeth,’ which speaks of the implicit taith 
that the person to be baptized should have. 

32. Yes, you say, he confesses that -he Sethe 
Beloved, let him confess again and again; the text does 
not say, “‘ He that confesses,”’ but “ He that believeth.” 
It is true, you have his confession, yet you do not know 
whether he believes or not ; and in this way you cannot, 
according to your view, fully satisfy this passage, unless 
you are fully assured that he bel:eves; because, ‘‘ Al! 
men are liars,’ Psalm 116, 11; and God only knows 
their hearts, 1 Kings8,39. Whoever, therefore, wishes 
to ground baptism upon the faith of the individual to be 
baptized, must never baptize any person ; for even if ycu 
baptize a person a hundred times in a day, you stil] do 
not know at any time whether he believes or not. 
What then do you effect by your anabaptism, since you 
act in opposition to yourself, baptizing when you do not 


109 Σ ON ANABAPTISM. 


know with certainty that the individual believes; and 
yet you teach that faith must undoubtedly exist. 
Consequently, this passage, ‘‘ He that believeth,” stands 
directly in opposition to their anabaptism, because the 
passage speaks of faith which is certain, but they ground 
their anabaptism upon a faith which is uncertain, and 
do not conform with the passage in a single letter. 

3d. ‘The same may likewise be said in reference to 
the subject of baptism, if he receives baptism or makes 
it depend upon his own faith; because he is uncertain 
with respect also to his faith. For, suppose an individual 
permits himself to be rebaptized to-day; .ane, for in- 
stance, who allows himself to be disturbed with the 
persuasion that he did not believe in his infancy 5 if then 
the devil comes to-morrow, and disturbs him in his mind, 
causing him to exclaim: ‘ Alas, now I feel true faith 
for the first time; yesterday I verily did not believe 
rightly! Well, I must be baptized the third time, and 
consequently the former baptism must also be ineffec- 
tual.”? Do you think the devil cannot do this? Yes; 
Jearn to know him better; he.can indeed, beloved friend, 
eecompksh eauch more. 

34. If, moreover, the devil assail in the same man- 
ner, the third baptism alse, and the fourth, and so on, 
without ceasing, (for such is his intention,) as he did my 
confession and that of many others, when wecould never 
eafficiently confess one and the same sin, and when we 
continually sought absolution after absolution, and con- 
fessor after confessor, without any rest and without 
ceasing, because we wished to save ourselves by our 
confession ; precisely as these subjects of baptism now 
expect to sustain themselves upon their faith. What in- 
deed would result frem this? A perpetual baptizing. 


ON ANABAPTISM. 103 


35. Wherefore it can avail nothing. Neither the 
baptizer nor the subject can with certainty ground bap- 
tism on faith; and consequently this passage of Scrip- 
ture is far more unfavorable to them than to us. ‘These, 
now, are the persons unwilling to believe the men who are 
witnesses of their baptism; while they believe themselves, 
notwithstanding they are men, that they are baptized ; 
precisely as if they were not men, or asif there were more © 
certainty in their faith, than in the evidence of the whole 
Christian church. 

36. Therefore I conclude in opposition to them, that 
if they wish to do justice to the declaration, ‘He that 
believeth,” they must, according to their view, condemn 
rebaptism much more than the first baptism. And nei- 
ther the baptizer nor the subject of baptism, can sustain 
himself by his opinion; because they are both uncer- 
tain as to the existence of the faith which they require, 
or stand at least in doubt and perplexity. For such is 
the precarious nature of faith, that frequently he who 
thinks he believes, does not believe at all; and on the 
contrary, he who thinks he does not believe but despairs, 
believes the most. Hence the passage, ‘ He that be- 
lieveth,’’? does not compel us to know who believes, or 
who does not believe, but it brings the matter home to 
the conscience of every man, that if he wishes to be 


saved, he must believe, and not act the hypocrite, as if 
he had received enough in baptism to be a Christian. 


For it does not say, “‘ He that knows that he believes, 


or if you know that this individual believes ; but ‘‘ He 


that believeth.’ He that has this faith, has it. Be- 


eve we must; but we neither should nor can know it 


with certainty. 
37. Since this baptism of ours, namely, the baptism of 


3 ὰ 
PFs 
a 


104 ON ANABAPTISM. _ 


children, has been practised from the beginning of the 
Christian church, and since no one can prove with good 
and substantial reasons, that there was no faith then, 
we should by no means alter this practice, and build on 
a foundation so insecure. For, whatever men wish to 
alter or to abolish, if it has been practised for ages, they 
should and must substantially prove to be contrary to 
the word of God. Otherwise, that which is not against 
us, is for us, says Christ, Mark 9, 40, and Luke 9, 50. 
Even as we opposed monasteries, masses, and the ce- 
libacy of the priests; but we did it so as to show the 
clear, indubitable scripture, to which they are contrary. 
For if we had not done this, we would indeed have been 
compelled to let them be as they hitherto were. 

38. From what source will they establish their as- 
sertion, that children cannot believe? Where is the 
scripture, by which they can prove it, and upon which 
they may ground themselves? They imagine so indeed; 
because children neither speak nor have their powers of 
reason improved ; but this imagination is uncertain ; yes, 
wholly false ; we are not to depend on our imagination. 

39. But we have scripture to establish the fact that 
children may and ean believe, even if they have neither 
language nor cultivated reason. As the Scripture says, 
the Jews “ Sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto 
devils, and shed innocent blood,”? Psalm 106, 37,38. If 
it were znnocent blood, as the text says, they were certain- 
ly pure and holy children, and such children they could 
not be, without the Spirit and without faith. Again, the 
innocent little children which Herod slew, Matt. 2, 16, 
were not over two years old, and undoubtedly destitute 
of language and cultivated reason ; yet they are now holy 
andhappy. And Christ, Matt.19,14,saysinreference to 


ON ANABAPTISM. 105 


little children: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven ;” 
and St. John in his mother’s womb was a child, Luke 
1, 41, and Ἐ am of opinion indeed, that he could believe. 

40, “Yes,” you say, “ the circumstance relative to 
John, was extraordinary, and it does not prove that 
all baptized children can believe.” But keep quiet a 
httle; pass this over for the present; it is not yet my 
object to prove the faith of children, but to show how 
false and uncertain the foundation of your Anabaptism 
ts, Since it cannot be proved that children may not have 
faith. For as John had faith without having language 
and cultivated reason, your argument cannot stand, when 
you say that children may not believe. The fact indeed, 
that a child believes, is not contrary to the Scripture, as 
the example of St. John shows. If, then, the fact that 
children believe, is not contrary to the Scripture, but in 
accordance with it, your position that children cannot 
believe, must be contrary to the Scripture. This I wish 
to prove in the first place. 

41. Who then has assured you, that baptized chil- 
dren do not believe, when I thus prove that they may 
believe? But if you are uncertain, why are you so 
presumptuous as to invalidate the first baptism, when 
you neither do nor can know that it is unavailing ? 
How, if all children at the time of baptism, not only 
could believe, but if they did believe, as well as John in 
his mother’s womb? For we cannot in truth deny, that 
even the same Christ who came to John in his mother’s 
womb, is with and in baptism; nay, he is the baptizer 
himself; hence he also speaks through the mouth of the 
minister, as well in baptism as he there speaks through 
the mouth of his mother. 

42, Now, since he himself is present here, and speaks 


106 ON ANABAPTISM. 


and, baptizes, why should not faith also. and the Spirit 
enter into the child through his speaking and baptizing, 
as well as they did into John? since the speaker and the 
performer are the same in both instances; and espeei= 
ally, since he says through Isaiah, that his word shall 
not return void, tsa.55, 11. Now youalso should pro- 
duce some passage of Scripture, which proves that chil- 
dren, in baptism, cannot believe, since I produce so many 
declarmg that they can believe, and that it is reasonable to 
maintain that they do believe; although it is unknown 
to us how they believe, or how faith is wrought m them Σ 
and yet after all, this is of little importance. 

49. He commands us, moreover, to bring the little 
children unto him; he embraces and kisses them, and 
says, ‘‘ Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. 19, 
14. In opposition to this, however, these fanatical 
spirits furiously array themselves, saying that Christ 
does not speak of /ittle. children, but of the humble. 
But this is mere equivocation, because the text says very 
clearly, that they brought little children unto him, not 
the humble. And Christ does not say, suffer the hum- 
ble, but the little children to come unto me; and he 
rebukes the disciples, not because they forbade the hum- 
ble, but the lttle children to be brought ; nor does he. 
embrace or bless the. Awmble, but the little children. 
Therefore when he says, ‘‘ Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven,” and, Matt. 18, 10, “ Their angels do always 
behold the face of my Father,’’ it must be understood 
in reference to these same little children. For he after= 
wards teaches that we shall likewise become as these 
little children. If, however, such little children were 
not holy, he would undoubtedly have given us a bad 
example to. imitate ;, and he should not have said, “ Ye 


ON ANABAPTISM: 107 


must become as little children,’’? but much rather, “ Ye 
must become superior to little children.”? In short, 
the enthusiast cannot so pervert the word children as to 
make it mean the humble in this text, unless he follows 
his own imagination ; the word stands here too forcibly 
and clearly before our eyes. 

44. But some wish to impair this text, by alleging 
that the Jewish children. were circumcised, and that 
therefore they might well be holy, and be brought to 

Christ, but that our children are Gentiles. 

45. But Laskin reply,—How can that affirmation be 
sustained, if there were also females among the little chil- 
dren that were brought unto Christ? These certainly 
were not circumcised; and they did bring all kinds of chil- 
dren unto him. Now since the male children are not ex- 
clusively mentioned there, we cannot exclude the female 
children, but we must allow them to have been little: 
children of both sexes ; and that they are called blessed, 
not on account of circumcision alone, but also because 
they now come unto Christ out of the Old into the New 
Testament, as his words declare: “Suffer the little 
children to come unto me ;—for of such is the kingdom 
of God.”? Such children, he says, as come unto me, are 
the kingdom of God. For by being brought and by 
coming to Christ, they become so fortunate as to enjoy 
his embraces, and his blessing, and the gift of his king- 
dom. 

46. Object therefore who will, I still maintain, as I 
have maintained in the Postil, that the surest baptism is 
infant baptism. For an old person may deceive, come 
to Christ like Judas, and permit himself to be baptized ; 
but a child cannot deceive; it comes to Christ in bap- 
tism, as John came to Aim, and as the little children 


108 ON ANABAPTISM. 


were brought unto him, so that his word and institution 
might pass over them, touch them, and thus make them 
holy; for his word and work cannot pass in vain: 
and yet in this case they are directed upon the child 
alone. If they should fail in this, they must fail en- 
tirely, and be in vain, which is impossible. 

47. Neither éan it be denied that these children were 
female and uncircumcised, concerning which the 106th 
Psalm, verse 37, says, that they satrificed their daugh- 
ters unto the idols of Canaan, and yet it calls them in- 
nocent blood. Thus Moses, Levit. 12, 5, doubtless 
commanded also the female children to be presented to 
God, to be purified, and to be redeemed} and it is ap- 
parent indeed, that only the male children suffered cir- 
cumc¢ision, but the female were also partakers of the 
same covenant, in virtue of the declaration which God 
made to Abraham: I will be the God of thy seed, and 
circumcision shall be a covenant between me and 
thee, and thy seed after thee, Gen. 17, 7. Now 
the female children are indeed also the seed of Abraham, 
and by that declaration God is even as well their God, 
though they are not circumcised, as he is the God of 
the male. 

48. Now, if they believe that through the covenant 
_ of circumcision, God receives both male and female 
children, and is their God, why then should he not also 
receive our children through the covenant of baptism ? 
since he has even promised us, that he will not be the 
God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, Rom. 
3, 29, of Christians especially and of believers. If the 
circumcision of the male childrenibe so beneficial in this in- 
stance both to the male and the female children, as tomake 
them the people of God, for the sake of Abraham’s faith, 


ON ANABAPTISM, {09 


from whom they descend, how much more should baptism 
profit each one in particular, so that they become the chil- 
dren of God, for the sake of Christ’s merit, to whom they 
are brought, and by whom theyare blessed. All this I say 
to show that the foundation of the Anabaptists is uncer- 
tain, and that they build upon it very unreasonably. 
49, “Yes,” say you, “he did not command that 
children should be baptized; nor do we find any ex- 
ample of it in the writings or Epistles of the Apostles.’’ 
He likewise commanded no adult, I reply, nor man, nor 
woman, nor any one in particular, to be baptized 3 hence 
we must not baptize any one. But he has commanded 
us to baptize ad/ natzons, none excluded, where he says: 
“ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing ther 
in the name,” &c. Now, children constitute a large 
portion of any nation. j 
60. So we read in the Acts of the Apostles, eh. 2, 
,» 39, ch. 16, v. 15, and in the Epistles of St. Paul, 
that they baptized whole families; but surely chil- 
dren also form a considerable portion of families} hence 
it appears that precisely as Christ commanded them #o 
teach and to baptize ali nations, so they did, anid, with- 
out distinction, they baptized al! that dwelt in the house. 
They did not expect that the factious spirits would en- 
déavor to make a difference between the young and the 
old,——for in all their Epistles they have written abund- 
antly distinct that there is no respect cr difference of per- 
sons among Christians, Rom. 10, 12,—otherwise they . 
would have been explicit, and have openly declared 41} 
these things. For St. John, in his first Epistle, ch.2, v. 
13, writes unto the little children also, because they have 
Anown the Father. And undoubtedly infant baptism 
came from the Apostles, as St. Augustine also writes. 


110 ON ANABAPTISM; 


51. Therefore these rebaptizers act dangerously it 
deed, not only because they are uncertain respecting 
their position, but also because they act in opposition to 
those passages of Scripture which we have adduced, and 
devise out of their own heads a difference of person, 
where God has made no difference. For even if they im- 
agined that they are not sufficiently overcome by these 
passages, they must nevertheless, contentious as they 
are, find themselves checked at least, and fearful that 
they are doing wrong, and rebaptizing upon uncertain 
grounds. But if they are uncertain, it is already con=— 
cluded that they do wrons; for in divine matters we 
should net trifle with uncertainties, but act upon cer- 
tainties: 

52. Wer if an Anabaptist, who is disposed not to be 
obstinate, but to receive instruction, hears that as John 
received faith and became holy, when Christ came and 
spake through the mouth of his mother, so the child also 
receives faith, when Christ speaks to it in baptism, 
through the mouth of the baptizer, because it is the 
word, the command of. Christ; anid his word cannot be 
spoken in ¥ain, he mst acknowiedge that this might traly 
be; he cannot deny it entirely and with truth; nor ad- 
duce any passages of Scripture in opposition to it. But 
if he cannot deny it truly and with good reasons, he 
cannot maintain his rebaptism indubitably ; for he must 
first prove substantially, that children are baptized with- 
out faith, if he shall establish the necessity of anabaptism. 
Thus, I think, it is sufficiently proved, that their position 
is uncertain and wholly presumptuous. : 

53. Well, I will even suppose that they could prove 
undeniably, thatchildren are destitute of faith when caused 
to be baptized, still I would desire to know from what 


ON ANABAPTISM. 111 


source they could prove that they must, on that account, 
be baptized again, when afterwards they believe or pro- 
fesstobelieve. Forthe assertion, “ Childrenare baptized 
without faith, therefore they must be baptized again,” 
is surely insufficient; they must assign some reason. You 
say itisa wrong baptism. What does that matter? it is 
nevertheless a baptism ; yes, it is even a right baptism in 
itself, only it was improperly received. For the words 
are pronounced, and all is done that belongs to baptism, as 
completely as if the subject of baptism had believed at 
the time of its administration. 

54. Now, if a thing is right in itself, it need not be 
renewed, even if it has been wrongfully received: re- 
move that which is wrong, and all will be right, with- 
out any repetition. Adusus non follit substantiam, 
imo confirmat substantiam. 'The abuse of a thing does 
not change its reality; yea, it establishes the reality. 
ff then faith were experienced ten years after bap- 
tis, why should we still rebaptize, if every thing that 
belongs to baptism has been already duly performed, and 
all has become right? For the individual now believes 
as baptism requires. faith indeed is not for the promo- 
tion of baptism, but baptism for the promotion of faith. 
Now, when faith comes, baptism has what it requires, 
and rebaptism is useless. 

55. Precisely as if a woman were to marry a man 
contrary to her will, and altogether without matrimonial 
affection for him, there would certainly be no conjugal 
tie between them in the sight of God. But if in two 
years afterwards she should feel connubial tenderness 
towards him, must we here, then, make new espousals, 
a new afhance, and a new marriage, pretending that she 
became his wife without the affection natural in such a 


D> 


a 


119 ON ANABAPTISM. 


case, and hence pretend that the previous espousals and 
marriage are void? We should indeed be regarded as 
tools, since all would be right now, because her affections 
have been awakened, and she can now consent to dwell 
with the man, whom she had reluctantly taken. 

50. Again, were-an old person, with sinister mo- 
tives, to permit himself to be baptized, and were he in 
the course of a year to become a believer, do you think, 
beloved, that he also should be baptized again? He re- 
evived the right baptism unworthily, and I hear, indeed, 
that his impiety or unworthiness should render baptism 
wrong ; and shall human abuse and wickedness be stron- 
ver than the good and immutable ordinance of God? 

57. God made a covenant with the children of Israel 
on Mount Sinai, Ex. 34,10. There some of them re- 
ceived that covenant unworthily through unbelief. Now 
when they afterwards became believers, must that cove- 
nant also, beloved, have become wrong, and must God 
come to each one again on Mount Sinai, and renew the 
covenant ? 

58. Moreover, God permits his Ten Commandments 
to be proclaimed ; but, because some persons hear them 
with their ears only, and not with due reverence, then ac- 
cording to this course of reasoning, the Ten Command- 
inents are void, and of no effect; God must afterwards 
furnish another new Decalogue in the place of the for- 
mer; and it is not enough for the people to turn with 
sincerity and observe the former Commandments. This 
would be a strange affair indeed, if the word of God, 
which abides forever, must be changed and renewed as 
often as the people change and are renewed; when at 
the same time, it remains firm and eternal, and those 
who now do not adhere to it, or who fall from it, may 


ON ANABAPTISM. 113 


have a certain, a permanent rock to which they may 
return, and upon which they can secure themselves. 

59. If subjects would swear allegiance to their lord 
with the intention of killing him, repent of this evil 
design in the course of three days, and cordially 
submit themselves to due obedience; would it also be 
necessary here, beloved, to take another oath in a differ- 
ent manner? Certainly not; because they would now 
act in strict conformity with the oath which they had 
treacherously made. 

60. If this is the principle upon which they wish to 
act, then we shall have enough to baptize every hour. 
For I will take up the declaration, “ He that believeth,” 
and if I find a Christian who is fallen or destitute of faith, 
I shall say: ‘“‘ This individual has no faith; his baptism 
must, therefore, be void; I shall baptize him again.” 
If he afterwards fall, I shall again say: ‘* Behold, he is 
destitute of faith; his former baptism must, therefore, 
be of no consequence ; he must be baptized even a third 
time.”? And as often as he falls, or there is doubt of 
his belief, I shall continue to say: “ He does not be- 
lieve, therefore his baptism is of no value;” in a word, 
he must permit himself to be baptized until he can never 
fall or cease to believe ; so that he may satisfy the dec- 
laration, ‘‘ He that believeth.””’ Tell me, what Chris- 
tian then shall ever be baptized enough, or arrive at an 
indubitable consummation of his baptism ? 

61. Now, if baptism can remain right and complete, 
though the Christian fall from faith or commit sin a thous- 
and times in a year; and if it is sufficient for him to re- 
form himself again in a proper manner and believe, and 
it be unnecessary for him to be rebaptized; why should not 
the first baptism also be sufficient and right, if the Chris- 


. 
ἧς 


114 ON ANABAPTISM. | 
»- 

tian afterwards becomes right and believes? For there is 
no difference in a baptism without faith, since iti equally 
void of faith, whether there be no experience 0 faith 
before or after the administration. If it is without faith, 
it must, as the Anabaptists foolishly pretend, be altered 
according to the expression, “ He that believeth.” 

62. I assert, therefore, that even if these baptizers 
could prove their position, that children are destitute of 
faith, which we have shown to be false, they would still 
have established nothing more by their contention, than > ~ 
that the true baptism, which God has instituted, —_ 
not received rightfully, but in the spirit of abuse. Yet 
he who proves nothing more than abuse, proves no more 
indeed than that the abuse must be remedied, and not that 
the ceremony must be repeated. For abuse alters the 
nature ofnothing. Gold does not become straw, if a thief 
steals and abuses it. Silver does not become papers [ἃ 
usurer unjustly gains it. 

63. Since, then, the Anabaptists show only the abuse 
of baptism, they act in opposition to God, to nature, and 
to reason, by changing and renewing the baptism together 
with the abuse; precisely as all heretics do in reference 
to the Gospel. ‘They presume to change it, and consti- 
tute out of it a new gospel, because they understand it 
erroneously, and consequently hear it in the spirit of 
abuse. Thus, no matter in what aspect you place the - 
Anabaptists, they act unjustly, defame, and calumniate 
this institution of God, calling it an improper baptism, on 
account of the unworthiness and abuse of men; when at 
the same time, they are unable to show this unworthi- 
ness and abuse. : 

64. But there isa diabolical work-spirit (Werkteu- 

Jel) among them, which exclaims faith, and all the time 


ON ΑΝΑΒΑΡΤΙΒΜῸ, 115 


means works ; which, under the name and appearance of 
faith, leads poor souls to rely upon works. Just as it 
happened with us under the Papacy, where we were 
forced to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as to a 
work of obedience, and no one approached it for the 
purpose of nourishing his faith: but when we had re- 
ceived this sacrament, all was done, and the work con- 
summated. 

65. Thus this work is so much insisted on by these 

τ abaptists, that the people rely upon it: if they are 
us baptized, it is right and well performed ; in reality 

Bhi make no inquiry after faith, but they boast of it 
e™ the sake of appearance only. For, as we have al- 
ready said, if they must be certain of the existence of 
faith in the individual before he is baptized, they must 
never baptize any person. And if they did not rely upon 
it as a work, or if they sought faith with sincerity, they 
would not dare to rebaptize ; as the same words of God, 
once pronouncedin the first baptism, endure forever, sothat 
they can afterwards rely on these words if they desire ; 
and the water is poured over them, to enable them also 
afterwards to comprehend it in faith, if they wish. For 
even if the words are repeated a hundred times, they are 
the same words still, which were pronounced in the first 
baptism, and they derive their efficacy, not from their 
frequent repetition, but from the command to pronounce 
them once. 

66. For it is the actual, the chief device of the devil, 
to divert Christians from that righteousness which is by 
faith, to the righteousness which is by works; as he 
forced the Galatians and Corinthians, who, as St. Paul 
writes, Gal. 5, 7, believed so devoutly, and so cheerfully 
pursued the Christian race, even in the same manner te 


116 ON ANABAPTISM. 


rely upon works. So now, when he perceives that, 
through the Gospel, the Germans properly acknowledge 
Christ and truly believe in him, by means of which they 
also are justified in the sight of God, he advances and 
tears them from this righteousness, as if it were of no 
consequence at all, and leads them on to this anabaptism, 
as to a better righteousness. By this means he causes 
them to deny their former righteousness as inadequate, 
and to seek after a false righteousness. 

67. What shall I say? We Germans are Galatians 
indeed, and continue Galatians. For he who suffers 
himself to be rebaptized, recalls by that act his former 
faith and righteousness, and brings them into sin and 
condemnation,—a thing which is shocking to hear,—as 
St. Paul says the Galatians are fallen from Christ, yes, 
have made Christ the minister of sin, if they be cerewm- 
cised, Gal. 5, 2, and 2, 17. 

68. But Satan is the author of all this, striving to 
render our doctrine suspicious, to prove that we have 
not the true Spirit or doctrine, because we are not rightly 
baptized, as they pretend. But the tree can be known 
by tts fruits, Matt.7,17,18. For we have not as yet 
discovered in Popery, or in all the sects, men who can 
handle and explain the Scriptures as ably as some of 
those whom, by the grace of God, we find in our midst. 
This is not one of the smallest gifts of the Spirit, 1 
Cor. 12, 10. 

69. Thus indeed we see performed in their midst the 
very works of Satan; for some of them, in promotion of 
Anabaptism, leaving their wives and children, their 
houses-and homes, desire to have no government, ἕο. ; 
when at the same time St. Paul teaches that, “If any 
provide not for his own, and especially for those of his 


ON ANABAPTISM. 117 


own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than 
an infidel,” 1 Tim. 5,8; and, Ὁ Cor. 7, 13, he is un- 
willing that the believing husband should leave the un- 
believing wife. And Christ also does not allow the 
bonds of matrimony to be severed, except it be for 
fornication, Matt. 19, 9. But the spirit of our doc- 
trine allows, yes, commands, all ranks of men to be 
cherished and held in honor, and faith to be exercised 
through love, in peace; hence no tumult can rise, nor 
jast accusation be brought against our doctrine: although . 


_ the Papists ascribe to us, in their invidious abuse, the 


cause of every calamity. But this has its judge, even 
their own conscience, in this world and im that which is 
to come. | 

70. By this means also are overthrown their pre- 
tensions, that baptism is of no effect, if the priest or 
baptizer, who administered it, did not believe. For 
though St. Peter should baptize some individual, no one 
could know whether St. Peter believed or doubted in 
that hour ; for no one indeed could see his heart. Ina 
word, this view in former times induced the Donatists 
to separate and rebaptize themselves, when they saw 
that some ministers and baptizers were unholy ; and they 
began to ground baptism upon the holiness of men, when 
at the same. time Christ grounds it upon his word and 
command. 

71. This our enthusiasts, the enemies of the sacra- 
ment of the Lord’s Supper, have likewise commenced. 
Though they pretend that the truth and the Scriptures 
compel them to do so, yet they are deluded. It seems, 
however, to be difficult for them to determine, (as they 
express themselvesat certain places,) whether every impi- 
ous individual can cause Christ to be present in the bread; 


τὶ 


μά, 


118 ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. 


precisely as if the whole world were certain and sure that 
they themselves believe and are full of purity and holix 
ness, and not so great sinners in the sight of God, as 
those whom they judge so maliciously, and reproach as 
knaves, forgetting the beam in their-own eye, Matt. 7,3. 

72. But we maintain, that if St. John was not 
ashamed to hear the word of God from Caiaphas, and 
if he regarded it besides as a prediction, John 11, 49; if 
Moses, with the children of Israel, received the pro- 
phecy of the ungodly Balaam, and regarded it as the 
word of God, Num. 24, 17; again, if St. Paul received 
the heathen poets, Aratus and Epimenides, and ap- 
plauded these passages as the word of God, Acts 17, 
28; Tit. 1, 12; andif Christ desires the impious Phari- 
sees upon the seat of Moses, to be heard, who are un- 
godly teachers, Matt. 25, 2; we indeed should much 
fess be over scrupulous, but let God judge their evil 
conduct, and we should be satisfied nevertheless with 
the divine word which they proclaim. For if they are 
wicked, they are wicked for themselves; but if their 
instructions be right, they instruct us rightly. 

73. Thus did the pious Magz also; they heard the 
word of God out of the prophecy of Micah, through the 
mouth of Herod, the cruel king, who heard it further 
from the ungodly High-priests and Scribes, Matt. 2,.4, 
5,9. Yet upon the authority of this word, they went to 
Bethlehem and found Christ ; and it did not in any way 
hinder them, because they did not hear the word of 
God, except through Herod only, the murderer of Christ. 

74. We must confess, however, that with respect to 
some other articles, these enthusiasts entertain views 
which are in accordance with the word of God; and 
although they are impious. heretics and blasphemers. 


᾿ ree! ht ; 
ON ANABAPTISM. 119 


of Christ, yet whoever hears this word from them and 
believes it, shall be saved. It is by no means an insig- 
nificant blessing, that God communicates his word 
through the wicked also and the ungodly; yea, in 
some respects it would be more dangerous, should he 
communicate it through holy men, than through unholy 
men, because, then, the illiterate fall into error, by at- 
taching more importance to the holiness of men than to 
the word of God. In this way more honor is attributed 
to men than to God and his word. But there is no dan- 
ger of falling into this error, when such men as Judas, 
Caiaphas, and Herod preach. Yet no one is ex- 
cused for his evil conduct, if God tan employ it to a good 
purpose. — 

75. If then an impious man can possess and teach 
the trué word of G'od, he can likewise much rather ad-— 
minister truly the sacrament of baptism and of the Lord’s 
Supper; as it is morenoble to teach the word of God, 
than it is to baptize, as St. Paul intimates, 1 Cor. 1, 
17. And, as we have already said, he that will not ap- 
preciate baptism unless he knows that the one who ad- 
ininistered it believed, must never appreciate any baptism. 
For if I ask: “ Are you rebaptized? Yes. How do 
you know that you are now rightly baptized?” If you 
reply, “‘ My baptizer believed ;” I ask, how do you 
know it? did you see into his heart? Your proud con- 
fidence would fall. 

76. Consequently, the position which we occupy in 
reference to baptism, is the most permanent and indubi- 
table, because God made a covenant with man, to be the 
God of the heathen throughout the world, as the Scrip- 
ture says, Christ has commanded the Gospel to be preach- 
ed in all the world, and as the Prophets have predicted 


ts 


£20 ON ANABAPTISM. 


in many passages. And for a sign of this covenant, he 
has instituted, commanded, and enjoined baptism among 
all nations, as it is written, Matt. 28, 19: “Go ye, 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father,” &c. Precisely as he made a cove- 
nant with Abraham and his seed, to be their God, and, 
for a sign of that covenant, he gave circumcision, Gen. 
17549 dh. 

77. This is our sure foundation and fortress: namely, 
that we permit ourselves to be baptized, not because we 
are certain of faith, but because it is the will and com= 
mand of God. For even if we should never be certain 
of any faith, we are still sure of the command, that God 
enjoins baptism, since he caused it to be proclaimed pub- 
licly to all the world. In this We cannot err, for the 
command of God cannot deceive. But concerning our 
faith he has given no order, declaration or command. 

78. It is true, we should believe in baptism; but we 
must not be baptized in consequence of this faith. To 
have faith, and to rely upon this faith and thus to be 
baptized in virtue of it, are things very far different. 
Whoever permits himself to be baptized in consequence 
of his faith, not only falls into uncertainty, but is an 
idolatrous denier of Christ. For he relies and depends 
upon that which is his own; that is, upon a gift which 
God has presented to him, and not upon the word of 
God alone; as much so as if a person would rely and 
depend upon his own strength, wealth, power, wisdom, 
or holiness, which are also gifts that God has given him. 

79. But whoever is baptized in virtue of the word 
and command of God, even if no faith attend his bap- 
tism, receives the right and the true baptism neverthe- 
less; for it is administered as God has commanded it to be, 


ON ΑΝΑΒΑΡΤΙΞΝ. 191 


It is, however, of no benefit to the unbelieving subject, 
on account of his unbelief; but it is not, for this reason, 
wrong or uncertain, or visionary. If all that is of no 
benefit to the unbeliever, should be wrong and vision- 
ary, nothing could remain night and true. For it js 
also commanded to preach the Gospel to all the world: 
the unbeliever hears it, and it is of no benefit to him; 
but must it therefore be no Gospel, or a wrong Gospel? 
God himself is of no benefit to the ungodly; shall he 
therefore cease to be God? 
, 80. Now, were even an old person to be baptized, 
_ and should he say, “ Sir, I desire to be baptized,” you 
would ask, “ Do you also believe?”’ as Philip did the 
Eunuch, Acts 8, 37, and as we daily do subjects for 
baptism; he would not exclaim boastfully, « Yes, I can 
remove mountains by my faith;”’ but thus: “ Yes, sir, 
ἴ believe, but I do not depend on this faith; it might be 
too infirm and uncertain: I desire to be baptized, be- 
cause the command of God requires it of me; upon this 


command I venture, Jet my faith be as it may in the 


course of time. If I am baptized in obedience to his 
command, I know that Yam baptized. ΤΥ 1 should be 
baptized in the vanity of my faith, I meght indeed be 
found unbaptized eae v, if my faith should fail, ot 
f might be tempted, as if I had not believed rightly yes- 
terday.. What! assail God and bis command, upon 
which I am baptized! these are sufficiently certain for 


me. It isa see adventure between my self and my ἢ 


faith. {ΠῚ believe, baptism is profitable to me; ΓΤ be- 
heve not, it is unprofitable. But my baptism is not 
therefore wrong or uncertain; nor does it rest on con- 
tingencies, but upon the indubitable word and command 
of God.” : 

11 


ger 


199 ON ANABAPTISM. 


81. Thus he would also say concerning the bap= 
tism which he received in his infancy: “I thank God 
and rejoice, that I was baptized in my childhood, for 
it stands as a proof of my obedience to the command of 
zod. Whether I believed then or not, I was nevertheless 
baptized in conformity with the command of God. The 
baptism is right and true, be my faith true or untrue at 
the present day. JI may hope yet to believe and obtain 
full assurance. ‘There is no imperfection i in the baptism 
which we receive; the defect is always in our faith; for 


as long as we live, we have enough to learn concerning 


faith, and it is possible for faith to fail; so that it may be 
said: € Behold, there faith has been, but it is no longer 
there.’ But concerning baptism it cannot be said: 
* Behold, there baptismhas been administered, but itisnow 
no longer baptism.’ No, it is yet standing; for the com- 
mand of Goi i is still standing; and what is eH according 
to his command, must be permanent and imperishable.” 
82. So far, in my estimation, we have proved for- 
cibly enough, thatthe Anabaptists do wrong by invali- 
dating infant baptism, were they even certain that 
children are baptized withont faith,—a propesition, how+ 
ever, which they cannot prove. On the other hand, that 
children do believe, we are likewise unable to prove by 
a passage of Scripture which says clearly and expressly 
in language hke the following: “Ye shall baptize 
children ; fer they also believe.””? To an individual who 
would insist upon us to produce such a declaration, we 
must submit and be silent: we find it nowhere written: 
But pious, rational Christians do not require this; it is 
demanded only by the contentious, obstinate enthusiasts, 
in order that they may appear wise. Neither can they 
produce any declaration which says: “ Ye shall baptize 


, ς 
ON ANABAPTISM. 123 


adults, and not children.” Yet we are persuaded by 
many strong reasons, that infant baptism is right, and 
that they believe. 

83. First, because infant baptism has descended from 
the Apostles, and the practice has continued ever since the 
Apostolic age, we should not abolish it, but allow it thus 
to be observed, since no one has yet been able to prove 
that children do not believe when they are baptized, or 
that this kind of baptism is wrong. | For even if I were 
not certain that they believe, I must still for the sake of 
my conscience allow them to be baptized; as it is far 

ἡ ποι οι for baptism to be administered to children, than 
for me to abolish it. For if this baptism be right and 
beneficial, and confer salvation upon children, as we be- 
heve, and were I to abolish it, I should be account- 
able for all the children that might be lost for the want of 
baptism: this would be a fearful responsibility indeed. 
But if it were wrong, that is, useless and unprofitable to 
children, there could be no other sin committed by it, 
except that the word of God would be pronounced in 
vain, and his sign ziven to no purpose ; I would be guilty 
of no lost soul in consequence of it, but only of the use 
of God’s word and sign in vain. 

84. But God would readily forgive this error, be- 
cause I would commit it through igncrance, and besides 
I would be constrained to commit it through fear of devia- 
ting from an established custom, as a thing which I did not 
devise, but which descended to me from the origin of the 
church, and which I could not prove to be wrong by any 
passage of Scripture, and which I would have done un- 
willingly, had I been convinced of any impropriety in it. 
It would be almost similar indeed to preaching the word 
of God among unbelievers in vain, or as he says, Cast« 


194 ON ANABAPTISM. 


ing pearls before swine, and giving that which is holy 
unto dogs, Matt. 7, 6; which word I must preach ac- 
cording to his command. But what could I do in this 
respect? Here also I would rather commit sin by preach- 
ing In vain, than by not preaching at all; for by vain 
preaching, I would not become guilty of the loss of any 
soul; but by not preaching, I night become guilty of 
losing many souls; and this responsibility even for one 
would be too much. 

85. This I say, then, were it even true that the 
faith of children is doubtful, m order that no one might 


omit baptism which is certain, for the sake of an uncertain Ὁ 


faith, because we did not devise it, but received it thus 
from the Apostolic age. For we should not alter or in- 
validate any thing which cannot be altered or invalidated 
hy the clear authority of Scripture. God is wonderful 
in his works; that which is contrary to his will, he in- 
dicates perspicuously in the Scripture. That which he 
does not thus indicate, we leave to his providence. We 
are excused ; he will not mislead. It would truly bea 
wicked deed, if we knew or believed that infant baptism 
were improper, and would still baptize them, as the 
Waldenses do; for in this way God and his word would 
be mocked. 

86. Secondly, there is one strong indication of the 
divine authority for infant baptism. No heresy has 
ever yet endured permanently, but it has always, and in 
a short time too, as St. Peter says, been exposed, and 
brought to shame; as St. Paul refers to Jannes and 
Jambres, and persons similar to them, saying that their 
folly became manifest unto all men, 2 Tim. ὁ, 8, 9. 
Now, if infant baptism were wrong, God undoubtedly 
would not have suffered it to continue so long, or to 


ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. 195 


be so universally observed throughout the whole Chris- 
-tian community ; nor could it have escaped from being 
at last brought into disrepute before all men. For al- 
though the Anabaptists now defame it, yet their at- | 
tempts are ineffectual, and it is not yet brought into 
disgrace. 

87. Now, as God has provided that the Bible be re- 
garded as the Bible, the Lord’s Prayer as the Lord’s 
Prayer, the Creed as the Creed, in the Christian church 
throughout the world, so he has preserved infant δαρ- 
tism trom being suppressed ; and yet, at the same time, 
- all heresies have been suppressed, which were later and 
more recent than infant baptism. ‘This marvellous 
work of God shows that infant baptism must be right. 
For he has not acted thus towards the Papacy, which is 
also a new institution; it has never yet been re- 
ceived by all Christians throughout the world, like in- 
fant baptism, the Bible, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, &c. 

83. “This,”’ you say, ‘does not show conclusively 
that infant baptism is true; for it is no declaration of 
Scripture.” ‘True, it 1s not established so ccnclu- 
sively and forcibly by passages of Scripture, that zn- 
fant baptism should have been introduced ameng the 
primitive Christians after the Apostles: but this much is 
proven conclusively, that no one at our day dares with 
good conscience to reject or abolish infant baptism, 
which descends from so great an antiquity ; because God 
not only tolerates it, bat has also supported it from the 
beginning, so that it has never yet been destroyed. For 
if we observe the providence of God, we must as willingly 
submit to it and believe, as if we hear his word; unless 
express Scripture declarations direct us to avoid it. 
As, for instance, the Papacy I would willingly let pass, 


126 ON ANABAPTISM. 


and stand as an institution of God, but since the Scrip- 
ture is aguinst it, I regard it indeed as an institution of 
God,—not, however, an institution of his grace, but of 
his wrath, from which we should flee; as all other 
plagues belong to the works of God also, but in his 
wrath and displeasure. 

89. Thirdly, this is likewisean instance of God’spro- 
vidence, that he has always conferred great and holy gifts 
upon many who were baptized im their infancy, enhight- 
ened and strengthened them with the Holy Spirit, and 
with the power of understanding the Scripture, and great 
things have been accomplished in the Christian church 
through them ; as, John Huss and his companions at that 
day, and many other saints before him: as he also does at 
the present day with very many excellent persons, and 
yet he urges none of them previously to rebaptism; 
which he would undoubtedly do, if he considered his 
command concerning baptism improperly observed. For 
he performs nothing inconsistent with himself; nor does 
he encourage by his gifts one act of disobedience to his 
commands. 

90. Since, then, he confers these gifts, which we 
must acknowledge to be the holy gifts of God, he cer- 
tainly by this act confirms infant baptism, and regards 
us as rightfully baptized. Thus we prove by this display 
of his providence, that the first baptism is right, and ana- 
baptism wrong; precisely as St. Peter and Paul, Acts 
15, 8, 9, proved by a miracle, when God imparted the 
Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, that it was the will of hea- 
ven for the Gentiles not to be under obligation to ob- 
serve the law of Moses. 

91. Fourthly, if the first or infant baptism were 
wrong, it would follow, that for more than a thousand 


ON ANABAPTISM. _ 127 


years there was no baptism, no Christian church ; which 
is not possible. For if so, the following article of the 
Creed would be false: “1 believe in a holy Christian 
church.” For during more than a thousand years, in- 
fant baptism was almost exclusively practised. Now if 
this baptism is wrong, the Christian church was without 
baptism for that length of time. If she was destitute of 
baptism, she was not the Christian church; for the 
Christian church is the bride of Christ, subject and obe- - 
dient to him, possessing his spirit, his word, his baptism, 
his Eucharist, and all that he possesses. 

92. And indeed, if enfant baptism were received, 
not generally throughout the world, but by some only, 
like the Papacy, the Anabaptists might claim some plau- 
sibility in rebuking those who receive it ; as we rebuked 
the ecclesiastics, because they degraded the sacrament 
of the Lord’s Supper into a sxcrifice, which nevertheless 
remains a sacrament among the laity. But since infant 
baptism has universally prevailed throughout the Chris- 
tian community unto this day, we have no shadow of 
probability that it is wrong, but the strongest indication 
that it is right. | 

93. Fifthly, now with this view that passage of 
Scripture also agrees, in which St. Paul says of Anti- 
christ, 2 Thes. 2, 4, that he shall sit in the temple of 
God, concerning which we have already heard. If it 
is the temple of God, it is not a den of heretics, but 
the true Christian church, which must surely have the 
true baptism ; of this there can be no doubt. Now we 
see indeed and hear of no other, but infant baptism 
practised under the Pope, among the Turks, and in all 
the world. Again, the facts, that Christ commands lit- 
tle children to come and be brought unto him, Matt. 19, 


128ϑ : ON ANABAPTISM. . 


14, saying, “‘ Of such is the kingdom of God;”’ that 
the Apostles baptized whole households, Acts 16, 15; 
1 Cor. 1, 16; that John writes to the little children, 
1 John 2, 14; that St. John in his mother’s womb be- 
lieved, Luke 1, 41, as we have stated above, all go to 
establish our position. 

94. If some of these passages of Scripture do not 
satisfy the enthusiasts, it matters little to me; it is enough 
for me, thus to stop the mouths of all, so that they can- 
not say, ‘Infant baptism is insignificant.” Even if 
they entertain doubts about it, I am satisfied they cannot 
henceforth destroy its force; but they must permit it to 
prevail among them amidst their doubts. But in our 
view it is abundantly certain, since it is in no respect 
contrary to the Scriptures, but conformable with them. 

95. Siaxthly, since God makes his covenant with all 
Gentiles through the Gospel, and institutes baptism asa 
sign, who can here exclude little children? Now, if the 
old covenant and the sign of circumcision, caused Abra- 
ham’s children to believe, so that they were, and were 
called, the people of God, as he says that he will be a 
God unto the seed of Abraham, Gen. 17, 7; this new 
covenant and sign must be much more efficacious, and 
constitute those who receive it the people of God. Now,- 
he commands all the world to receiveit. Upon this com- 
mand, as no one is excluded, we baptize every one with 
confidence and security, prohibiting none, except those 
who oppose it with obstinacy and will not receive it. 
If we baptize every one according to the command of 
Christ, we leave Christ to provide the manner in which 
the subjects of baptism shall believe. We have done 
enough when we have preached and baptized. If then 
we have no special passages of Scripture which speak of 


ON ANABAPTISM. © 129 


baptizing children, they also have none which enjoins 
the baptism of old persons; yet we have the common 
Gospel and the common baptism given with a command 
that it be administered to every one, wherein children 
must also be included. We plant and water, and God 
will give the increase, 1 Cor. 3, 6. 

96. In a word, the Anabaptists are too vindictive 
and insolent. For they do not regard baptism as a di- 
vine ordinance or command, but as if it were a human 
device ; like many of the church usages under the Pope; 
as, the consecration of salt, of water, and herbs. If 
they held it as a divine ordinance and command, they 
would not speak of it with so much irreverence and 
scorn, even if it were improperly applied. But since 
they have fallen into this foolish opinion, that baptism 
is a thing like the consecration of water and salt, or 
wearing hoods and veils, they exclaim and abuse it as a 
dog-bath, a handful of water, and many other expres- 
sions equally insulting. 

97. Precisely as he, who holds the Gospel as the 
true word of God, does surely not blaspheme it, even if 
there are many who neither believe nor accept it, or use 
it falsely. But he who does not regard it as the word 
οἵ God, might readily come out and blaspheme, saying, 
it is a fable, a tale, a mass of nonsense, and the like; 
and he might easily find followers who would believe 
these blasphemous words. 

$8. For this you should observe well, that, if the 
Anabaptists should first have had to prove their position 
by good arguments, they could not have deceived so 
many people, nor have drawn so many to unite with them. 
For they can adduce no positive argument to estab- 
ish their presumptions, But they decoy many people 


190 ON ANABAPTISM. 


among them by employing loud and vociferous invec= 
tives against baptism. For Satan well knows, that if 
the unthinking populace hear high-sounding invectives, 
they become bewildered, and instantly believe, without 
making any further inquiry after reasons or arguments. 
As, when they hear it said, ‘ Baptism is a dog-bath, 
and the baptizers are false and knavish bath-servants,”’ 
they exclaim: “ Heigh! then Jet the devil baptize, 
and God rebuke the false bath-servants.” This art of 
abuse is their dependence, upon this they rely, and they 
have no other weapon by which they can assail baptism. 
For all whom I have heard express themselves, yes, all 
who have conversed with me, concerning these matters, 
were perfectly exhausted when they had given vent 
to these harsh invectives,—dog-bath, bath-servant, 
handful of water, &c.,—and they stood like a shorn 
boy, without any thing left to shelter their imbecility. 

99. In the very same way Satan deceives those who 
slander the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. For 
since he very plainly perceives, that he can adduce noth- 
ing permanent to sustain his falsehoods, he proceeds to 
fill, in the first place, the ears of the infatuated popu- 
lace with false and revolting charges, that our Sacra- 
ment of the Altar is a flesh-eating and blood-drinking 
sacrament. When these vociferous words have been 
uttered, all their skill is exhausted ; and then they begin 
to speak of Christ’s ascension to heaven. 

100. This same course is pursued by the Jews at the 
present day. For the purpose of preserving their chil- 
dren in their faith, they slander Christ shamefully, call- 
ing him Thola, and they tell audacious falsehoods about 
him. This oppresses the innocent and simple heart, and 
deceives it, as St. Paul, Rom, 16, 18, says. Hence they 


ON ANABAPTISM. 131 


have been making some progress, because they can lead the 
people as they please, by their egregious calumnies, and 
need not show any plausible reason for their error. For 
if they were under the necessity of establishing their po- 
sition with firm security in the first place, their falsehoods 
might easily be delineated in their true colors, and refuted. 

101. But inasmuch as we know that baptism is a 
divine institution, which God himself has appointed and 
confirmed, we pay no attention to the abuse which it re- 
ceives from ungodly men, but simply attend to the ordi- 
nance of God; and thus we find that baptism is a thing 
holy, blessed, glorious, and heavenly in itself, which is to 
be held in the highest reverence with fear and trembling, 
like every other ordinance and command of God, as it 
is just and right. But the fact that many individuals 
abuse it, does not result from any fault in baptism; for 
we might in the same manner regard the Gospel as an 
idle tale, because there are many who abuse it. 

102. Since the Anabaptists, then, have no argu- 
ments, that we have yet seen or heard, by which they 
can establish their doctrine, except egregious calumnies, 
every one should justly shun them, and guard against 
them, as the true messengers of the devil, sent into the 
world to slander and pervert the word and ordinance of 
God; so that people’may not believe on them and be 
saved. For they are the birds which devour the seeds 
sown on the way side, Matt. 13, 4. 

103. And in conclusion I say, that even if a person 
were never baptized, and still knew no better, or firmly 
believed that he had been truly and correctly baptized, 
this faith would nevertheless be sufficient for him. Be- 
cause as he believed, so it would be with him in the sight 
of God, and “ All things,” says Christ, Mark 9, 23, 


ὌΝ 


132 ON ANABAPTISM. 


“are possible to him that believeth.”” Such a person 
we could not baptize without violence to his faith. How 
much less then should we rebaptize those who are cer- 
tain that they have been baptized? Leave it to God, 
whether they believed or not when they were baptized. 
For the Anabaptists are unable to know with certainty 
that their anabaptism is right, because they make it de- 
pend on faith which they cannot ascertain, and conse- 
quently they practice their anabaptism in uncertainty. 

104. Now it is sinful and a tempta ation against God 
to create doubts and uncertainties in divine things} and 
he who teaches an uncertain presumption for indubitable 
truth, lies as well as he who speaks openly against the 
truth ; for he speaks that which he does not know him- 
self, and still wishes it to be regarded as truth. But if 
they would cause anabantism to depend on the author- 
ity and command of God, they would soon be convinced 
that it is useless and unnecessary, because the divine 
command would have been complied with already in the 
first baptism. 

105. Thus they calumniate, moreover, and deny the 
command and authority of God. For though he has 
authorized th's first baptism, which has been duly per- 
formed, they assert nevertheless that it 1s wrong, and 
call it a dog-bath ; what else is this but asserting that 
the command and authority of God are futile; what is 
it but blasphemy? And for these expressions they have 
no other reason, except that they wish to have faith mani- 
fest in baptism, and yet they cannot have it so. This 
is denying and slandering im a malicious and shameful 
manner, the indubitable command and authority of God, 
for the sake of an uncertain presumption. 

106. But suppose the first baptism be υὐαύςἀδιμοημά 


ON ANABAPTISM. 433 


‘by faith, tell me then which of the two is the greater 


and more excellent, the word of God or faith? Is it 


not true that the word of God is greater and more ex- 
‘cellent than faith; seeing that the word of God 15 not 


based and built upon faith, but faith upon the word of 
God; in addition to this, faith is wavering and change~ 


‘able, but the word of God is immutable. 


107. Tell me, further, if one of these two should 


‘change, which should the more reasonably change, the 


immutable word or mutable faith? Is it not undeniable, - 
that faith rather should change, and not the word of 
God? It is more reasonable mdeed that the word of 
God should prodace a different faith, (where no genuine 


‘one had previously existed,) than that faith should change 


the word. Since then, they must confess, that in the 
first baptism there was no imperfection in the word of 
God, but the imperfection consisted in the want of faith, 
and that ne other word is necessary, but a better faith, 
why do they not much rather endeavor to produce a 
stronger faith, and leave the word unrepeated? Now if 
the word and ordinance of Ged must be wrong, because 
we do not sincerely believe on them, the word will 
scarcely ever be right. 

108. Even if they wished to do justice to their own 
presumption, they should institute, not a practice of re- 
baptizing, but of rebelieving ; for maha is the word 
and ordinance of God, and needs no repetition or renewal; 
but faith, if it has ceased to exist, neq ures renovation. 
Therefore with consistency they might be reproducers of 
faith, (Wiedergléubler,) but not rebaptizers, even if 
they were in the right, which however is not the fact. 

109. Now these Anabaptists are unable to sustain 
their doctrine with any watt of certainty at all, and they 


134 ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. 


are found to be insincere in their attempt, denying and tals 
umniating the order of God, through a false and rash’ 
_ presumption. ‘They pervert the order of things, bas- 
ing the word and ordinance of God upon the work 
and faith of men; they seek baptism when they should 
seek faith, and thus they are proved to be false, erring, 
perverted spirits. For these reasons every pious Chris- 
tian, at the peril of his soul, should carefully guard 
against them. In doing this, may Christ our Lord as- 
sist and bless us! Amen. | 

110. Thus much in haste and brevity, you will ac- 
cept for the present ; fur at this time I am otherwise en- 
gaged, and cannot devote myself entirely to this matter ; 
nor do I yet know, as I have already said, their position 
altogether. For the devil is raging, he is transforming 
hundreds into thousands, and bringing about so great a 
confusion, that scarcely any one knows what he believes. 

111. The Anabaptists hold, with the enemies of the 
Sacrament of the Altar, that there is nothing but bread 
and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Again, these Sacramen- 
tarians differ with the Anabaptists in their opinions con- 
cerning baptism. Neither are the Sacramentarians uni= 
ted among themselves; nor are the Anabaptists, except 
only in their hostility against us. Preciselyas the Papacy 
is divided into innumerable factions of priests and monks, 
who heretofore have been lacerating each other, and now 
all at once have become united against us. It is equally 
so with political princes and lords. Pilate and Herod; 
who in other respects are deadly enemies to each other, 
must it seems unite against Christ. 

112. Yet the error of the Anabaptists in peference to 
this subject, may be tolerated rather than that of the 
Sacramentarians. For the latter destroy baptism en- 


ON ANABAPTISM. 135 


tirely, but the former renew it. Here there is still a 
ehance for aid and admonition, which may enable 
them to-arrive at the truth. Well, we have succeeded 
so far at least, as to show that the Anabaptists hold an 
erroneous opinion, an uncertain faith, and are unable to 
establish their views. 

113. For Satan does no more through all the en- 
thusiasts now, than to bring about things which are 
altogether doubtful, thinking that it is enough if he can 
talk arrogantly and contemptuously about us; asthe 
factious Sacramentarians do. Here no one will investi- 
gate and prove his opinions; but all their efforts are con- 
centrated for the purpose of making our doctrine appear 
suspicious and doubtful. Swspictones docent, non fi- 
dem,—they teach suspicions, not faith,—and then call 
them Seripture and word of God. For the devil per- 
ceives that he can do nothing in opposition to the clear 
hight of truth ; he therefore stirs in the dust, ardently de- 
siring to. Σ νοις a fog before our eyes, in order to prevent 
us τ seeing the light; and in this obscurity, he presents 
before us nothing but false lights, in order to mislead us. 
That is, since they have framed their opinions, they en- 
deayor to reconcile the Scripture with them, and make 
violent distortions to suit their preconceived notions. 

114. May Christ, who has heretofore faithfully stood 
by us, more completely subject Satan under our feet, pre- 
serve you all against the deception of your tyrant 
and Antichrist, and graciously lead you into his libe 
erty. Amen. | 


ἢ lal: sling νὐδλλανίαι eis 


Fis, 


χ ἱ ee Υ pe »- ᾿ ᾿ cx fe ἣ y » 

τ ΘΝ geht Fit τἀ a aR AE sen m4) Ξ ΕΝ ἈΠ ΤῊΝ 

a es τε eis seater Ὦ κρλμέρύε: 
" = Ἔν A i 


‘ ~ 4 -» ΟὟ Νὰ " τὸ 
Ὁ» te oot ἀν ¢ en ate ᾿ oy wbens a . 1 
ΣΡ 5 ; wea 
τ by + . ν ~ 
Γ ΠΤ" ᾿ CoH δας 
Ἢ ΡΟ Beaks) ρὲ fe ST Hae? 
» y ah x “ἀμ Ry r eae won i 
3 4 ag 
a r . 
i ee ᾿ ἴοι: γῇ 
A J oe 4) £3 ; Ι 
a —-_ * 
) εἶ ἘΠ Μ.2..0 ΚΣ τὸἢ 
y τ Ἄν, 
αν ΤΉ 2-3) 4? <j 
j wasn Gi 


a = Γ BUY οἷ ek 
2 satan pen θεά 
> Deh τς ces θὲ» απο ἄν Ὄ mat "Ἢ 
oh eb, ) τ bey 7 3 ἜΤ west " 
τ εἱόλιῥε δα salen Kiel 
τ oH ay AUR) ine ων rep 
unt 
a" 


ἐπὰν 


v4 
a) 


δ 
. 


- 


»»ὐὖνο 


ey sue his 


{ 


See t ν᾽ 
eee en δῶ il 


| 
i 


yas 
4 - τς ρον ᾿ς * 


? 
7 
᾿ 
1 
Ἷ 
? 


Α 
DISSERTATION 


OR 


FHE LOBD’S SUPPER, 


BY 
DR. MARTIN LUTHER. 


A. D. 1528. 


Let integrity and uprightness preserve me.—Ps. 25. 


1. Praise and gratitude forever be to God, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord ; for the book which I have pub- 
lished this year against the Enthusiasts and the enemies 
of the holy Sacrament, has been attended with results 
of no slight importance. In the first place, many pious 
hearts, which had been perverted, which had been filled 
with anxiety, by the unprofitable instructions of the En- 
thusiasts, now find themselves restered to peace, and 
with great joy they thank God, as they confess to me in 
their writings. In the second place, because I have 
charged Satan so exactly in the right point, and have 
followed up my assault with so much determination, 
that now for the first time, he has become altogether 
furious and unrelenting against me. This is amply tes- 
tified by the last answer of the Enthusiasts against my 
]i#tle book,—an answer which has been long in circula- 


140 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


tion, and now at last on this day of St. Martin, has been 
sent to me here at Wittemburg ; for it is highly probable 
that fears have all along been entertained of its total 
extinction. 

2. God defend us! for those heroes are so full of 
wrath, that they not only forget their usual moderation, 
which they have been accustomed to laud to the skies 
against me, and which they would now quite willingly 
maintain, though no adder is so poisonous as they are in 
their writings; but through their excessive rage and 
mortification, they cannot perceive what answer they 
should make, or against what point they should direct 
it. And this unwonted frenzy has seized more especi- 
ally the mind of Zwinglius, who mixes up a mass of con- 
fusion about Images, Purgatory, Saints, Honor, Keys, 
Original Sin,—and seems perfectly at a loss to know 
how better to play the madman with his new doctrine, 
than to disgorge a vast deal where there is no necessity, 
and to skip over where an answer would be required,— 
as I intend to prove. 

3. In reference to this, however, I have said enough, 
and I will write no more about it just,now, in order that 
Satan may not become still more frantic, and disgorge 
still more falsehoods and follies, as he has been doing, 
befouling the paper with useless verbosity, and pervert- 
ing the time of the reader from better instructions. For, 
if I have not, through the instrumentality of my book, 
elicited a correct answer,motwithstanding I have so fre- 
quently and in large characters, indicated the particular 
point to which I desired an answer, I have no hope of 
obtaining an answer at all, though I should write a 
thousand books. And in this I can hardly think that 
Satan is to blame; for, it is not pleasant for a liar te 


\ 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 141 


have to deal with the truth. May the mercy of God 
convert them and free their minds from the shackles of 
Satan’s importunity; more than this I cannot do. I 
have fears, alas! that Ε must have been a true prophet, 
when I wrote, that no heretical leader could be converted. 
And therefore, I will now let them alone, according to the 
instruction of St. Paul, Tit. 3, 10, “A man that is a 
heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” 
For in future they can accomplish nothing more; they 
have done all they are able to do; and 1 will turn to our 
own adherents, to whom I wish to give further mstructions 
in this article,sofaras I can through the grace of our Lord. 

4, And although m my two little books,—one 
against the heavenly Prophets, the other against the 
Enthusiasts,—I have done quite enough for all intelli- 
gent Christians ; so that every one who does not wish 
to go astray, can secure himself successfully against the 
seducer ; and up to this time our adherents have escaped 
uninjured by the mordacity of the Enthusiasts, though 
they have loudly boasted of their victory. Yet I wish to. 
publish this little book finally on this subject, m order. 
to give greater strength to the weak, and to elucidate 
that article more fully. For 1 can see, mdeed I can 
even feel, that, because Satan has given so clumsy an 
answer, and has disgorged so many unprofitable words, 
he has a design to obstruct me in other things, perhaps 
of much greater importance to him. Hence it will no 
longer become me to consume my time over his nonsense, 
and suffer the Scriptures to be misrepresented. He may 
rage hereafter as much as he pleases. 

5. In this little book, | propose three divisions. 
First, to convince our adherents, by examples, that these 
Enthusiasis have not yet by any means made out an an- 


142 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


swer upon my principles of reasoning : second, to exam~ 
-ine the passages which have reference to the holy 
‘Sacrament: third, to acknowledge every article of my 
faith, in opposition to this and every other new 
heresy, so that, neither during my lifetime, nor after my 
death, they may be able (Ὁ boast that Luther coincided 
with them on this subject, as they have already done in, 
some particulars, . . 


PART I. 

6. First of all, let every pious Christian be on his 
cuard in reference to the enemies of the Sacrament, from 
the circumstance, that from their very origin they have 
had so many factions and ringleaders, and their principal 
teachers were so much divided among themselves in their 
interpretation of the text, “‘ This is my body given for 
you.” For such diversity and contradiction cannot pro- 
ceed fromthe Holy Ghost. Satan, thatimportunate spirit 
of contention, is assuredly the author of it, as I have 
proved in the little book which I lately published. For, 
if it is to support a lucid, incontrovertible article, the 
text must be identical and simple, and must receive one 
mvariable interpretation. But now, since these teachers 
have so great a variety of textsand interpretations; where 
every interpretation is directly opposed to some other ; 
where not one is assured of his interpretation ; where not 
one has been able to prove his interpretation and dis- 
prove the others, it follows of course, that they all have 
gone astray, that not one among them up to this 
day has the genuine text in this passage, and that they 
all thus have to keep this sacrament without a text. 
For an unsettled text is fully as bad as no text. What 
kind of a sacrament then may that be, in which there is no 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 143 


text or fixed expression of Scripture. For the language 
of Christ must be precise and perspicuous, or else people 
would know absolutely nothing about it. But we in- — 
deed have an invariable text, an invariable interpretation, 
we have the plain words just as they stand there, yet even 
we are divided in our opinion ‘about them. 

7. Should they reply in answer to this, that no in- 
jury results from their employing a variety of words and 
interpretations, because they do not differ as to the prin- 
cipal objects, namely, the “ bread’ and the “ wine,””— 
producing these examples of similitude, where Christ 
within the compass of the Gospel represents the sub- 
stance of that Gospel, by numerous forms of expression, in 
John 4, 13, by the drinking of water, in John 6, 51, by 
eating his flesh and dr inking his blood, by the house- 
holder who hires laborers in his vineyard, Matt. 20, 1; 
and so too by a great variety of similitudes is the king- 
dom of God represented in the Gospel,—hence that it is 
not unreasonable for these Enthusiasts to have a vari- 
ety of interpretations and forms of expression for the very 
same subject in the Scripture. 

8, What think you? Is not this most admirable 
consistency ? Who does not perceive that this miser-_ 
able faction, on account of their excessive vanity, will 
either not answer, pretending to scorn our question, or 
they are so completely blinded, as to discern neither what 
is demanded, nor what they should answer? Who, I 
pray, has made such an inquiry? Who has asked them 
to inform us how a single object may be represented by 
a variety of terms, definitions, similitudes, and forms ? 
Surely we all knew this before much better than they 
can ever teach us. I am fully aware, from general ob- 
servation, that Christ, the only Savior, not only has nu- 


on 


ἂς. 
144 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
merous epithets, but all indeed which are to be found in 
the Scriptures. He is called a lamb, a rock, a corner- 


stone, the sun, the morning-star,a fountain, a bridegroom, 


a householder, ‘a teacher, a father ; yes every appellation 
is given to him, or used in reference to him, each one havi ing 
direct application to his character. Such are the refer- 


ences to which they have recourse, precisely as if we were 


inquiring how one thing might have many names and rep- 
resentations, or as if there were any one who doubted it. 

9. But the object and aim of our inquiry is this: 
“ How does it happen among the Enthusiasts, that a 
particular name, term, or definition, applied to a parti- 
cular subject, should disagree with itself? how should 
one say yes,—another say no? For instance, Carl- 
stadt says “ zovro refers to the sitting body ;?? Zwin- 
glius says, that the same word zovro refers to the bread. 
Now, both cannot speak the truth. One must be guilty 
of falsehood, and a teacher under the guidance of Satan. 
For in a single proposition it cannot occur, that a cer- 
tain name or term shall have alike two opposite senses 
and interpretations. In reference to a particular pas- 
sage,—as John 1, 29, “ Behold this is the Lamb of 
God,’’—I cannot say that Lamb here should equally 
signify a sheep or a wolf; or probably, a sheep and not 
a sheep. But in this very manner do Carlstadt, Gico- 
lampadius, and Zwinglius differ about the single word 
τουτο, and one says it means this, another says it means 
a different thing. Again, Zwinglius says, ‘ Is means 
signifies.’ No, says Qicolampadius, “It simply 
means ἐ5.) Again, says Gicolampadius, “ My body 
means the sign of my body.’ No, says Zwinglius, 
“It simply means my body.” Here, here indeed 
should an answer be given, and this contradictién 


ἄς, * 
4 


* TYE LORD’S SUPPER. 185 


put at rest, in miles that Satan may not have to stand 
in his bleak deformity, with his falsehoods so openly, ‘> 
exposed; but in all probability this will forever remain 
unanswered by him. rat ‘sor 
10. For grant that the Scripture denominates Christ ᾿ς 
a lamb in one ἍΝ and that its language is such as ‘would 
be proper in speaking of a lamb, yet in another place it_ 
does not speak in opposition to this, contradicting its ow n 
terms, and giving the negative to its own declarations. 
For if Christ 1 is called a leah in one passage, it is no con- 
tradiction, that in another passage he is called a rock or 
a stone, and thereisno want of harmony inthis. But the 
Enthusiast smites himself on the cheek, and gives contra~ 
dictory explanations to a variety of words, and frequently 
to a single word in the samé passage. ‘These contradic 
tions, however, would not be so awkward, nor the in- 
famy 50. great, if they would -give dissimilar and 
incongruous explanations to a single word in different 


* 


paces, or to various words in the same passage ; but t 
give a contrary and contradictory explanation toasingle 
word, in a single passage, indeed ina single sentence, τς 
in common phrase, to make a free use of your licence, 
and to subject Satan in his nakedness to the pillory ; for 
no sentence will admit this, and a child must say that at 
cannot be so. When I say, ‘Christ is the Lamb of 
God,’’ it is impossible that one shall understan: me to 
say a wolf, another understand me to say a sh 20). One 
of them must have a false impression oft my meanings and 
the convictions of both cannot be frou the Holy Ghost. 
Now, the Enthusiasts have ar mong them some ten diffeér- 
ent interpretations of the words in the Eucharist, 
and not one agrees with the others in signification. 
These interpretations must, therefore, necessarily be 


13 , 


ὦ τ 


146 THE LORD’S sure 
false, and they must have their source from Satan, 
and not from any good spirit. 

11. But the false Enthusiast charges us with not ad- 
hering to the words and to a single interpretation, be- 
cause we say, ‘‘ The words,—‘* This is my body,’— 
should be understood thus, ‘under the bread-is my 
body ;᾽ or, ‘in the bread is my body,’ asserting. that 
we too are at variance.” I answer him as follows: 
“The spirit of falsehood knows full well that he does us 
injustice by this accusation, only uttering it in order to 
defame us, and smirk over his own palpable falsehoods in 
the eyes of his followers. For he certainly knows from 
the whole tenor of our writings, that we have used our 
hest exertions to have these words, “ This is my body,” 
understood in their utmost simplicity, just as they stand 
and as they read, and that we have not made various 
and discordant texts out of a single one, as they have 
done. 

12. I have said in my little book, that those who, 
in familiar discourse, make this affirmation, ‘* Under 
the bread is the body of Christ,” or, “In the bread is 
the body of Christ,’’—are not to be censured, because 
by these expressions they declare their belief, that the 
body of Christ is actually present in the Eucharist. But 
in doing this, they do not substitute a new text. They 
do not even wish these words of theirs to be viewed as 
a text; but they adhere to the original text. St. Paul, 
however, says, ‘* Christ is God,’? Rom. 9, 5; but in 
Cor. 5, 29, he says, “(οὐ was in Christ,” and yet the 
meaning of these phrases or propositions is plain and 
indubitable, and consequently they are not opposed ἰδ 
each other. But the text-of the Enthusiasts disagrees 
in every passage, in every word, 


 . 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. | 147 


13. And should any one demand of us so much pre- 
cision, should he lay so much stress upon the expres- 
sion, or should it be proved, that the text, “ This is my_ 
body,’ cannot allow me to say in another place, ‘ In 
the Eucharist is the body of Christ,” we are prepared 
and willing to retract the expression, and not have it to 
read in this manner, but simply and unchanged as the 
wards stand in the text, ‘“‘ Thisis my body.’’ Let them 
do the same, and agree in their text. No Christian, 
however, will impose upon us the necessity, in all our 
sermons and discourses, whenever we are speaking on 
the subject of the Eucharist, of saying continually, 
« This is my body,”’ provided we suffer the text, in the 
administration of this sacrament, to retain its original 
phraseology. On other occasions and in other proposi- 
tions, surely we may be permitted to say, “ Under the 
bread, or in the bread is the body of Christ ;’’ “In the 
Eucharist the body of Christ is really present,”’ or else 
we should not be permitted to declare or speak about 
our belief. 

14. But the Enthusiasts strive to amuse us in this 
way, as the most effectual means for diverting our at- 
tention from their secret lurking-places. ‘They are fully 
sensible that such is the case with their own falsehoods 
in every passage and every sentence, and they contrive 
in this way to confirm their incongruity, and do not 
wish to reform it. It proves, however, of little service 
to them. We are quite willing to permit them to speak 
of this sacrament in their discourses, as they like or as 
they are able. But the text of the Eucharist, we de- 
sire to maintain simple, invariable, settled, and un- 
ambiguous, in every word, syllable, and letter. While 
they do not manifest this disposition, I am free to 


Re 


148 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


conclude, that Satan, the father of all confusion, 1s 
their teacher. For St. Paul says, “ God is not the au- 
thor of confusion,”? 1 Cor. 14,33. So all Christians are 
required to be unanimous, Ephes. 4,3; and to make 
no divisions, b Cor. 1, 10. Thus you can recognize 
this faction from the earliest result of their incongruities. 

15. Besides, if the Scriptures assign various names 
or denominations to a single object, those names are not 
only of like substantial import and unopposed to each 
other, but they are fixed and furnish a solid foundation 
on which we may rely. For example, when Christ is 
declared to be a Jamb, I am able to conclude with cer- 
tainty, that he is with the strictest propriety called a 
lamb. But no Enthusiast can ever render his definition 
determinate.. For Carlstadt, even to this day, has never 
been able to show conclusively that the word ovo has 
the very application which he assigns to it, as the En- 
thusiasts themselves acknowledge. ZAwingliusand Cico- 
lampadius have never yet undertaken bya single letter, 
to show that zs can be as much as signifies; body 
as mutch as the sign of body; but it is made to 
depend entirely on the authority of their own words 
and opinions, concerning which they themselves are unde- 
termined; and they respect no one so much as to fix 
its signification, even if they were able. 

16. Hence the Enthusiast should not be solicitous to 
apprize us, that the expression in the Scriptures, “ the 
kingdom of God,” has a variety of equivalents, but be 
should rather endeavor to prove that these equivalents are 
indeterminate and in direct opposition to each other ; 
as we make our complaint; and prove that their 
false and erroneous interpretations are not only numer- 
ous, but indeterminate and opposed to each other. Now 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 149 


here is a glorious answer indeed! When I com- 
plained of their confusion and instability, their leader 
made his reply in reference to variety, precisely as if 
variety and confusion meant the same thing. inquired 
how it happened that their views and interpretations 
were not only various, but also at variance and opposed 
to each other. ‘ They are not zncorrect,”’ replied he, 
“because they are vartous.’’ Hence, he says, we should 
be satisfied, acknowledge our errors, and confess their 
belief to be right. 
17. If they are required, however, to explain how 
this confusion in the midst of variety, can spring from 
the Holy Ghost, no one is at home. ‘They must aban- 
don in reality this offensive contrariety, and become 
united and fixed in their texts and views, before we ean 
unite with them ; if they will not do this, reasonably we 
should avoid them, and say, “‘ ‘The devil is in the bush.” 
For it would be more important to remove this offence, 
than to assail the images. ‘The images would not mo- 
lest us ; but-confusion ise αρδν ἀν and of terms, that 
is eon 
18. For had they gained their cause triumphantly, 
and stopped our mouths, they still would have aeccom- 
plished no more as yet, nor have brought their cause 
to any greater advancement, than to have deprived us 
of this text,—‘* This is my body,’’—according to cur 
sense. but by this they would not yet have established 
their interpretation, nor will they ever be able to establish 
it. Now, if they possessed a righteous spirit, they would 
not only remove the false interpretation, but they 
would produce and establish in its stead another inter- 
pretation true and intelligible. Had St. Paul, with creat 
power of argument, rejected the righteousness of the 


ον & 


150 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


law or of works, so far indeed he would have accom- 
plished nothing. But in its stead he has taught and 
brought to our knowledge a different righteousness. 
God did not abrogate the Old Testament, until he in- 
troduced the New Testament in its stead, and rendered 
it much more secure than the Old. 

19. That is not an amiable spirit which teaches 
and declares, that a thing is false, and yet in its 
stead replaces no infallible system of truth. It 15 
little benefit indeed to combat and expose a system of 
falsehoods, without searching and establishing the truth 
in its stead. Whoever wishes to assail falsehood effec- 
tually, must always supply its place with the open, sure, 
permanent truth. For a falsehood neither trembles nor 
flies, until the clear and lucid truth approaches. False- 
hood finds her chief delight in the darkness and absence 
of truth. If our interpretation of these words,—“ This 
is my body,’’—be erroneous, then Zwinglius is bound 
to establish and render intelligible his own text and in- 
terpretation, namely, “ Tis signifies my body.” Cico- 
lampadius is bound to do the same, and all the rest of 
them are bound to establish their own interpretations. 
But when will they do this? 

20. Yea, with good reason I may say to you still 
further, because they have not been able to establish or 
to prove their text and interpretation, it is certain that 
they should not represent our text and interpretation as 
false. For, as remarked already, who can combat false- 
hood with certainty and success, unless he can elicit the 
truth which is opposed to that falsehood. Who can 
charge any thing as being wrong, who does not, on the 
other hand, point out that which is right? In the na- 
ture of things light must dispel darkness; darkness can- 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 151 


not dispel darkness; and so too Beelzebub never drives 
out Satan. The Enthusiast knows and feels this pro- 
-foundly; hence he steals around, like the cat around the 
hot panada, and contends with savage fury, that our text 
and interpretation cannot be right; and he shuns and flies 
from the word of God, like Satan himself, that he may 
not be forced to prove his own text and interpretation 
right, for he feels in his conscience that he is not able to 
prove it. | 

21. For this reason he intends that the subject shall 
be left at rest, after having removed the text of the 
Eucharist according to our interpretation, and supplied 
in its stead no other that can be relied upon. But no, 
this will not do. If you destroy, you must build up 
again; if you point out an error or a falsehood, and 
caution us against it, you must teach in the place of that 
error some determinate truth, or put an end to your cav- 
illing and your teaching. For by acting in the manner 
you are acting, you admit the charge, that you are a spirit— 
of error and falsehood, because you assert a thing to be 
false, and then cannot prove your assertion to be true, 
nor are you willing to prove it. But the Holy Spirit 
knows perfectly well how to prove the opposite, and to 
establish it, when he has contested a falsehood or an 
error. 

22. Let this which I have written, stand as a warn- 
ing to you, my beloved friends and brethren; for you 
can, by the circumstance that he shuns the light, 
detect this spirit,—an idle prattler where there is no 
needs—who skulks and steals away, when it would be 
necessary to speak. And, as I have said, in my former 
little book, do not presume to think that he will stand 
up manly before your eyes, in an argument or a contro- 


152 THE LORD’s SUPPER. 


versy ; but just as he did in the first controversy, he will 
continue to do in every other controversy, as we shall 
hear. 

23. Hence you must guard against these Enthusiasts, 
or assail them afresh in reference to this incongruity and 
uncertainty of their expressions and interpretations ; and 
demand of them with confidence, that they shall produce 
a correct, determinate, unanimous text from these words, 
“This is my body.”’ If they do this, join them with 
confidence; I also will confess myself subdued. But so 
long as they will not do this, they must be viewed as 
unrighteous ; they must be denominated heretics, enthu- 
siasts, seducers, and finally regarded as discomfited, 
did they possess twice as much pedantry and pride. For 
though the principal points of their theory were correct 
and true, yet it would still be necessary to have a 
stmple, true, intelligible, accordant text; because no 
superstructure can be sustained upon an uncertain, a 
discordant, contradictory text. And thus my first ob- 
jection remains unshaken, that these Enthusiasts have 
numerous, conflicting leaders among them, which is an 
evidence, that Satan is their ruling spirit. and their 
master. 

- 24. Inthe next place, I have required it to be proved 
to us out of the Scriptures, how this little word, zs, should 
be equivalent to s¢gnifies, in the Eucharist. For, in 
my former little book, I had shown that the Enthusiast 
in his previous writings, had ingeniously introduced some 
expressions from the Scriptures, in which he presumes 
the word ἐδ may be equivalent to s¢gnifies, but this was 
only his own dark opinion, and no proof has yet been giv- 
en. For this reason I demanded, that he should still per 

form so necessary a duty, and prove its figurative import. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 153 


For it is not very essential to us, for him to introduce 
passages from the Scriptures. We knew these passages 
perfectly well,—‘‘ Christ is a rock,” Rom. 9, 33,— 
without the necessity of his introducing them here. 
But we cannot perceive, we cannot understand, that 
they are figurative; and we demand that the proof 
of this may also be presented in his arguments. 

25. But he still goes on, still introducing other simi- 
lar passages, such as, “ John is Elias,”? Matt. 11, 17; 
* Christ is a vine,” John 15, 21. “After he has intro- 
duced all these expressions, he sounds the charges long 
and loud with his own words, and altogether without 
the authority of Scripture, he declares, ‘Here is a 
figure. For Johnzs not Elias, but signifies Elias.” 
Hence you can see perfectly well, that he will not prove 
how 7s can be equivalent to signifies. He only con- 
tinues to say, ‘it has been explained by signifies,”’ but 
who made this the point or object of his inquiry, whether 
he had explained it thus or not? We knew perfectly 
well that he had done so, but he ought to prove from 
the Scripture that he had explained it correctly. 

26. And here he labors very industriously indeed to - 
imitate corrupt German, while his German would be cor- 
rupt enough in all conscience, without so much effort. 
Although he is very sensible, that his quibbling is noth- 
ing but mere gossip, and although he acknowledges that 
it is not his intention to insist, that because the word ¢s 
must in some places be understood in the sense of sig- 
nifies, it must necessarily be thus understood in the 
words of the Eucharist, yet because other passages 
in the Scriptures and the Creed coincide in showing that 
the words of the Eucharist cannot admit our inter- 
pretation, among them the word ἐδ is understood in the: 


———— 


154 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


sense of signifies. ‘For,’ says he, “ the interpreta- 
tion is absurd even to the candid reader.”? Yes, absurd 
to the carnal reader. Now, they have never proved 
how our interpretation of the words in the Eucharist 
does not correspond with the Scriptures and the Creed ; 
and this shall more fully appear hereafter. 

27. But they will reap no advantage from rendering 
the text of the Eucharist unintelligible in this manner, 
and stealing about secretly like the thieves. They 
ought to stand their ground; and because they have 
taught that zs is equivalent to signifies, they ought to 
establish their interpretation, and replace a new intelli- 
gible interpretation for us, in the room of the old well 
known text, which they desire to mutilate and render 
unsettled in its meaning, in the manner in which I have 
already said they are bound to do. But now, since they 
shun this, and will have nothing to do with such 
a course, it is plainly to be understood, what kind 
of a spirit they have,—one that tears down, and will not 
build up; one that wounds, and does not desire to heal. 
Such is the spirit of Evil. Wherefore it is necessary to 
guard against this coy spirit, that flits and flutters about 
in this way so as not to give a correct answer, and 
only to let him go on. 

28. But as further instruction to you, our own 
adherents, you may be assured that any one is a teacher 
of fiction, who says that the little word és is equivalent 
to signifies. No man can ever prove it from a single 
passage of Scripture. Indeed, I will say further, if the 
Enthusiasts can produce one expression in all the lan- 
guages in the world, in which the word 15 is equivalent 
to signifies, they may consider themselves victorious. 
But they will quite willingly let it alone.” It is a defect 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 15d 


in these lofty intelligences not to have a proper view of 
the science of words, grammatical figures, or tropes, as 
they are called, which we learn in our primary schools. 

29. This science teaches, how a child should make 
two or three words out of one, or how he may give a 
new sense and wider application to a single term. As, 
(in order to introduce some examples,) the word flower, 
according to its primitive and original signification, may 
stand for a rose, a lily, a violet, and the like, which grow 
up and bloom out of the earth. Now when I wish to 
praise Christ, with reference to his personal character, 
seeing him descended from the Virgin Mary, a very beau- 
tiful child, 1 may take this word flower, and make a trope, 
that 15, give it a new sense and application, and I may say, 
“ Christ isa flower.”’ Here all the grammarians, all the 
rhetoricians say the word flower has become a new word, 
has a new signification, and means no longer a flower 
from the field, but the child Jesus, and not that the word 
is has become figurative; for Christ does not signify a 
flower, but he is a flower, though a different flower from 
a natural one. 

30. This exactly coincides with the instruction of 
the poet Horace, in his Art of Pcetry, who says, 


Dizxeris egregie, notum st callida verbum, 
Reddidertt junctura novum. 


That is, “You will speak elegantly, if your happy 
expression shall render a well known word new.”’ 
Hence we learn that a single word can become two or 
more words, if it receive in addition to its own literal 
sense, some new signification different from its own. 
As flower is one word when it signifies Christ, and an- 
other when it signifies a natural rose or the like, and still 


156 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


different when it signifies a golden, silver, or wooden 

rose. Thus if we say of a miser, “ He is a dog ;” here 
. . - . . . 

the word dog signifies a stingy miser, and from being 


an old word, it has become a new one, according to the 


. ὰ . . . 
maxim of Horace. The word zs here is not equiva- 
lent to s¢gnifies, for miser does not signify a dog.. 


31. In every language men speak in this manner, | 


and give a new meaning to their words; as when we say, 
“« Mary is the daughter of the morning ;”’ “ Christ is the 
fruit of the body ;”’ “The devil is the god of this world;” 
“The Pope is a Judas;” “St. Augustine is a Paul ;” 
“St. Bernard is a dove;’”’ “David is a little wood- 
worm :”’ and similar expressions, of which the Scriptures 
are full. And in our grammars these are called tropes 
or metaphors, when we give one name to two different 
things, in consequence of perceiving some similitude be- 
tween them; and though in regard to the letters, the 
name is the same, the word is but one, yet it is manifold 
in force and signification ; im respect to power, use, sig- 
nification, there are two wards, one old, the other new, 
as Horace says, and the children all know. 
2. In giving such words a new application, we Ger- 
mans are in the habit of prefixing the word reché, or an 
Wer, or neu, (real, another, new,) and we say, “ You 
are a real dog;” ‘‘'The monks are real Pharisees ;”’ 
‘‘’ The nuns are real daughters of Moab;” “ Christ is a 
real Solomon.”” So again, ‘ Luther is another Huss ;”’ 
“ Zwinelius is another Korah;”  Cicolampadius is a 
new Abiram.” Every German example will bear me 
testimony, and render it evident that such expressions 
are new words; and the import is precisely the same if I 
gay, “ Luther is Huss;” “ Luther is another Huss;” 


“Luther is a new Huss;” “ Luther is a real Huss.” 


~ye 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 157 


And thus one can readily feel how in such expressions, 
according to the remark of Horace, a new word is 
formed out of one already existing. It is inconsistent 
with taste and judgment to say, ‘ Luther signifies 
Huss ;”’ but we say, “‘ He is a Huss.’’ In such expres- 
sions we have reference to the character; we indicate 
what a person is, not what he signifies; and for each 
new character we make a new word. This you will 
find to be the case in all languages, I am perfectly well 
assured 5 all the grammarians teach it, and tle children 
in school are acquainted with it; and you will never dis- 
cover that 7s can have the force of stgnzfes or r2precents. 

33; Now, when Christ says, “ John is Eliss,” it is 
impossible for any one to prove that John re; resents 
Elias ; for it woald even be ndiculous, that John should 
represent Elias; far more reasonably, Ehas should rep- 
resent John. And according to the reasoning of Zwin- 
glius, Christ ought to have inserted the words,—he ought 
to have said, “ Elias is John, that is, he represents John.” 
But Christ wishes to say what kind of a man John is, 
not what he represents; he wishes to tell what kind of 
a character or office he held, and he says, ‘* He is Elias.” 
Here Elias has become a new word, and does not mean 
the o/d Ehas, but a new Elias; as we Germans say. 
‘John is a real Ehias;’? “John is another Flias;” 
“‘ John isa new Flias.??. And equally so is it often said, 
“ Christ is a rock,”? which means that he has the pro- 
perty of a rock; he is in reality a rock, a new rock, 
however; a real rock; and so too, with the sentence, 
“ Christ 1s a true vine.”’ 

34. How does it sound, beloved, if you attempt to 
explain this expression, “Christ represents the true 
vine,” according to the obscure principle of Zwinglius ? 


τῦϑ THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


For who then is the true vine which Christ represents ? 
Do I hear indeed that Christ is to be the sign or repre- 
sentative of the wood in the vineyard? Alas! that 
would be a fine thing! Why did not Christ more rea- 
sonably say, ‘* The true vine is Christ ?”’ that is, “the 
wooden vine represents Christ.’’? It is more reasonable 
indeed that Christ should be represented, than for him 
first to represent, since that which represents is always 
inferior to that whick is represented; and every sign 
is less glorious than the thing signified, as ‘even the chil- 
dren and illiterate people know full well. 

39. But Zwinglius entirely overlooks the word true 
in the expression, ‘Christ is the true vine.” Had 
he noticed it, he never would have made a figure 
out of the word zs. For neither language nor reason 
will allow us to say, “Christ signifies the true 
vine,” or “ Christ represents the true vine.’” Nobody 
van assert that in such an expression the true vine 
is the wood in the vineyard. And thus the text 
itself forcibly proves, that vine in this example is 
a new word, which means a new vine, a different vine, 
a érue vine, and not that which grows in the vineyard. 
Hence the word zs cannot be figurative here, but Christ 
is really a vine, and possesses the nature of a true, new 
vine. Evenif the text would have stood thus, ‘* Christ 
> isa vine,’”’ still it would not have read in such a man- 
_ ner as to warrant me in saying, “ Christ represents ἃ 
vine :᾽ but I would say much rather, “ the vine repre- 
sents Christ.” 

36. So too the following expression, ‘‘ Christ is the 
lamb of God,” Jolin 6, 29, cannot be understood as mean- 
ing that Christ represents the lamb of God} for if so, 
‘Christ must be inferior to the sign, to the bisa of God. 


IEE LORD’s SUPPER. 159 


But what will be the lamb of God which Christ repre- 
sents? Can it be the paschal lamb? Why then did he 
not transpose it and say, with greater plausibility, 
that the Lamb of God is Christ? that is, the paschal 
lamb signifies Christ,as Zwinglius explainsit? Butnow, 
because these little words, of God, stand in connection 
with the word lamb, it is a powerful demonstration, that 
Lamb here is a different word, a new word; that it 
means a different lamb, the new and true lamb which 
Christ really is, and not the old paschal lamb. 

97. And the same reasoning will apply to all the ex- 
amples which they produce; as, ‘ The seed is the word 
of God,”? Luke 8, 11, seq. ‘“ The field is the world,”’ 
Matt. 33,38. In these they are utterly unable to make 
it appear that 7s is figurative, with any color of reason. 
But even children in school will say that the words seed 
and field are tropes, or words with a new application, 
according to the nature of a metaphor. For a liter- 
al word is not the same with a metaphorical; but they 
are really equivalent to two distinct words. Thus seed 
in this example does not mean the grain nor the wheat, 
but the word of God, and the field means the world; 
for Christ (says the text itself) speaks in parables, and 
not in reference to natural grain or wheat. But who- 
ever speaks in parables, makes out of ordinary words 
certain tropical, new, and different words, for were this 
not the case, the language would not be that peculiar to 
the parable, if the ordinary words were employed im 
their original sense. Void indeed must that man be of 
good sense or common intelligence, who would take the 
words in a parable in their ordinary signification, con- 
trary to the nature and design ofa parable, which requires 
for its composition the ornament of figure and imagery, 


Ὡς 


100 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


38. In the same manner too, may we explain the 
passage from the first book of Moses, “" The seven good 
kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven 
years,” Gen. 41, 26. Pecause the text itself says that 
the words are used in reference to a dream, and in re- 
ference to the sinilitudes or signs of seven years, the 
> must be 
regarded as metaphors and equivalent to new words, 
which signify the same thing as the words, “ seven 


words “seven good kine,” “seven good ears, 


years ;”’ that these words, “seven vears,” according to 
their ordinary signification, and these, “seven kine,”’ 
according to their new signification, express exactly the 
same idea. For the seven kine do not represent seven 
years, but they are essentially and really seven years ; 
they are not natural kine which eat grass in the pas~ 
ture, although the oll, ordinary words seven kine have 
been assumed. But here is a new expression, and they 
are seven kine of famine and of plenty, that is, seven 
years of famine and of plenty. In ἃ word, our En- 
thusiasts may introduce passages, and say, ‘ Here, 
and here is a figure.” But they never will prove it ina 
single expression; for as yet they have not dared to 
undertake the proof in reference to such expressions. 
They conceive it to be quite enough for them to intro- 
duce passages, and say, ‘‘ Here is a figure.”? But this 
is not sufficient for us; we yield not our implicit confi- 
dence to Zwinglius or to any man; we must have rea- 
son and demonstration. 

39. But here perhaps, the other factions will start up 
with arrogance, and exclaim, ‘ By this reasoning you 
will confirm the figurative interpretation of Gicolampa- 
dius; because he too, according to this remark of Ho-~ 
race, makes a new word, a tvope, out of an ordinary 


Νά 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 161 


word, and says, ‘ The expression, my body, means here, 
the sign of my body.’”’ 'This can soon be answered. 
For the grammarians, and equally so all Christian teach- 
ers, forbid us to depart from an old, and customary sig- 
nification, and adopt a new signification, unless the text 
and the sense require it, or from a comparison with 
other passages of Scripture. Should this course not 
be pursued, we should never retain any determinate 
sense of text, of interpretation, of expression, or = 
Janguage. As when Christ says, “John is Ehias;’ 

here the text and the Creed agree that Elias ibd 


necessarily be regarded as a new word, because it 15. 


certain that John is ποῖ, and cannot be the old Elias. 
So too with the proposition, “ Christ is a rock.” 
The text and the Creed mutually agree, that rock 


_ here is a mew word; because Christ is not, nor can he 


be a natural rock. 7 

40. Now, we cannot allow Cicolampadius to make 
“sion of the body,” out of the word bedy, because *he 
does it with a sinister motive, and he is unable to prove 
that the text or the Creed will admit it. It is equally 
as irrelevant as if some one should contend, that the pro- 
position, “‘ The Gospel is the power of God,” Rom. 1, 
16, is equivalent to ‘“ The Gospel is the sword of Ro- 
Jand.”? According to this mode of interpretation, some 


one mightsay that Belial signifies or denotes Christ, Judas 


denotes Paul; who would be able tocheck sucha licentious 
mode of interpretation? ~But unless he prove his inter- 
pretation, no one will admit it, and he must sustain 
his proof from the text. Qicolampadius goes not a 
step farther in his objection than simply to admit 
some bread and wine in the Eucharist. But though 
he should sustain this opinion, a thing which he cannot 


109 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


do, still he would not be able to sustain nor to prove 
the opinion, that body means the sign of body, as I 
have formerly shown in my little book, and Cico- 
Jampadius must also continue without any determinate 
text or interpretation of the Eucharist. Now, there 
must be a determinate text and interpretation of the Eu- 
charist, even were there nothing in this sacrament but 
straw and chaff. But who will furnish such a text? 
‘They must not do it; they do not wish to do it, they 
are not even able to do it. 

41. Well! So we shall abide by our own interpre- 
tation; and we admonish all, who will allow themselves 
to be admonished, to guard against these indetermi- 
nate, unintelligible tropes and figures. For it is not 
enough that I say, Bread is bread and wine is 
wine; but 1 must, I should show how the text 
should read, and how it should be. understood ; 
whether it shall be written thus, “ This s¢gnifies my 
bedy ;᾽ or, “ This is the sign of my body ;”’ or, ‘ This 
is my body.” We suffer ourselves to make no child’s- 
play or trifling toy out of this text, as they seem quite 
willing to do. ‘These are the words of Christ. We 
must Anow what they contain, and what they give. In 
a word, it is just as I have said: they do not wish to 
answer, where an answer should be given, and they 
chatter all the time about their own visionary opinions. 

42. In the third place, although the leader of the 
Enthusiasts is most assuredly aware, that, by the grace 
of God, I understand how we must explain one 
passage of Scripture by comparison with other pas- 
sages,—how, before the name of Zwinglius became 
popular, I have exhibited this rule before all the world, 
in numerous publications ; yet he must teach me still in 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 163 


this particular, over so many leaves, for no other reason 
in the world, but to induce people to believe that he wishes 
to give an answer once at least. Now God knows,I have 
desired an answer to my proposition, and not this machi- 
nery from him, a machinery for which no thanks are due to 
him. But this I dowish earnestly still to this day, that he 
teach himself this mode of explication and those of his per- 
suasion who need it more than 1; and that he employ it on 
the text of the Eucharist, which is still necessary 
for him. 

43. Now he censures me severely for introducing 
ihis clause only,—‘ This is my body,’’—and for omit- 
ting the following,—‘‘ which is given for you,”’—and he 
runs on with his gossip to the most vicious extent, show- 


_ ing how the latter clause explains the preceding. Well! 


I understand pretty well, that one passage explains an- 
other; I have just been in the bath, and washed out my 
ears, in order that I might hear distinctly, how in the 
text of the Eucharist, the latter clause,—‘‘ which was 
given for you,’”’—should explain the former,—* This is 
my body.”? But I ask,—How can the explanation be 


~ proved or established? Now hear for once the lecture 


of a master: perhaps you never heard one before. 

44, “The body of Christ,” says he, ‘‘ was visibly 
eiven for us on the cross ; and because it stands written in 
the text of the Eucharist,—‘ This is my body which is 
given for you;’ it must be visible also in the Eucharist, 
if it is to be regarded as the same body which was given 
for us.” This is the way in which the succeeding 
clause explains the foregoing,—that, because the body 
of Christ is not visible at the administration of the Eu- 
charist, the word zs must contain a figure. Now tell 
re, beloved brethren, whether this mystic has an earnest 


164 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


desire to answer us, or whether he does not much rather 
make a mockery of the subject. But I thank thee, 
Christ Jesus my Lord, because thou art able, in so mas- 
terly a way, to entrap thine enemies in their own words, 
to put them to shame, and thus to confirm our be- 
hef in thine infallible words. This consideration alone 
should induce every one to avoid this sect, when he 
beholds a blindness so grossly profound, in this sublime 
and cultivated genius. ‘The children in school know 
that ‘“‘ which” relates to the substance, and this genius 
says that “‘which”’ relates to the property,—yes indeed, 
to a property the most ordinary and mutable! 

45. In whatever time or place, I can say of the body 
of Christ, —‘‘ This is the body of Christ, which was given 
for us,’’—that body must be visible there, because it _ 
was not given otherwise than visibly ; but if it is not 
visibly present, therefore it is not there at all. Now 
I point with my finger to heaven, and repeat these 
words, “ There sits the body at the right hand of God, 
which is given for us,” then it must in reality be visibly 
sitting there, or else it is not there at all. For the suc- 
ceeding words, “ which is given for you,” explain it 
thus, according to the reasoning of this genius. Again, 
when Christ hid himself and went out of the temple, 
John 8, 59, I might say, “‘ There goes the body which 
was given for us;” but he was visibly given for us. 
Theretore he goes out of the temple visibly, and the 
Evangelist tells a falsehood, when he says that Christ 
went out Azdden ; or else he was not there at all. And, 
in a word, let the body of Christ be where it may, it is 
the body which was given for us. Since then it 
was visibly given for us, it cannot be at any place 
without being visible there. What do you think? 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 165 


Have you heard a master once? Here you have 
for once a Scripture and a Creed, which cannot ad- 
mit our interpretation. Now confide henceforth in this 
mystic; he can instruct you correctly in the Eucharist. 
But Satan is always obliged in this way to deck his wis- 
dom with ornaments, and he always emits his odor, to 
let people know that he is about. 

46. So imprisoned, restricted now is the poor body 
of Christ, because it was once visibly given for us, that 
it can either be present at no place invisibly, or if it is 
invisible, it is not there. For if the mere circumstance 
that it was visibly given for us, prevents it from being 
present in the Eucharist ; and it cannot be present in any 
other than a visible state, because the words stand writ- 
ten, “This is my body which is given for you;” it 
cannot be present at any place, except in a visible 
state: for these words,—“ which is given for you,’’— 
give this explanation. What does “which” mean? 
“<Which,’”’ says the genius, “‘ which’ signifies the 
manner or form in which he hung upon the cross.” 
Now, he hung there visibly before the eyes of the Jews, 
under the spears, and horses. Wherever therefore he 
would be present in the Eucharist, all the Jews, the 
horses, the spears, the cross, the nails, must all be pres- 
ent at the Eucharist together; yes, even at the right. 
hand of God, and in every place in which the body — 
of Christ is present. 

47, In this manner we must explain the Scriptures, 
and judge one passage by others! They are angry, be- 
cause I discern Satan by what they say. Beloved, how 
can Reason be heard to declare on this point, that it is 
the infirmity of man, and not the mockery of Satan? 
Especially because Zwinglius has made out of this so 


100 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


much verbosity and spiritual machinery, that it may be 
regarded as his very best train of reasoning, his real 
master stroke. Méiimzer was a daring spirit; but this 
man is so daring, that he disgorges whatever falls into 
his mouth, nor does he weigh his own declarations. 
God, however, thus cautions us. 

43. Now is it not lamentable, that the holy words 
of Christ, “ This is my body,’* must be misrepresented — 
by such negative, false reasoning as these, and the Eu- 
eharist disgraced to thisextent? Shoulda child in school 
make such a syllogism, he should receive a shilling; 
should the master of the sophists make it, he ought to 
be considered a dolt; but in this man that must be de- 
nominated divine Scripture—divine truth, which they 
eulogize so highly in opposition to our interpreta- 
tion. One might easily employ the same mysticism, 
and say: “Christ at the right hand of God, is the Son 
who was born of the Virgin Mary: 

But he was born of the Virgin Mary, a mortal be- 
ing : 

Fherefore he must sit asa mortal being at the right 
hand of God. 

Lord John the knight rides without armor, therefore 
he is not a knight. 

Rachel has no veil on, therefore Rachel is not a wife. 


| According to this new rule, property is substaace, nor 


‘can the property be distinguished from the subject. 

49. In the fourth place, he comes to the words in the 
Eucharist, and he classes them in two divisions. Out 
of some he makes a command, which names something 
for us to do, or commands us to do it, as these, “ Take, 
eat.”? Out of some he makes an expression or descrip- 
tion, which merely tells us what occurs. But I must 


TIE LORD’S SUPPER: 167 


‘tntroduce his own sordid, miserable German, which is 
far more delightful to him, than its cracking to the stork, 
although a person might melt with perspifation, before 
he could understand it. With a vast deal cf stammer- 
ing and coughing, he says: ‘“‘ Where God gives command, 
there you find the expression imperative, (Heisselwort,} 
as, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods,’ Deut. 5,7; Exod. 
20,3. But where he is the agent of the action, there you 
find the expression potential or causative, ( Thatelwort,) 
as, Gen. 1, 14, ‘ Let there be light.’”’? Now, here his 
object is just as if he would say, ““ Where there are po- 
tential words, although I also should pronounce the 
same, no effect would follow ; were I to say, according to 
Gen. 1, ‘ Let there be a sun and moon,’ nothing would 
follow from my pronouncing these words. So, although 
Christ in the Eucharist gave his body, when he said, 
‘This is my body,’ it does not follow that when I speak 
the same words after him, that his body must be pres- 
ent ; for Christ in no place has commanded, that his body 
should be present merely at the utterance of my words.” 

50. Oh! this poor troubled spirit! how he winds and 
writhes himself, and yet can find no place to creep out. 
Now let us take him up on the first point, because he has 
admitted, that Christ gave his body to the disciples in 
the Eucharist. For he acknowledges that there are 
causative words in the expression, ‘“ ‘This is my body,” 
which appeared to be the case on one occasion ; and kind 
thanks to them that they ‘suffer us to have the first ad- 
ministration of the Eucharist unimpaired. But when 
we have this, others must also be left to us. We desire 
also to rescue this first administration of the Eucharist 
completely, and that too through their own words. 

Ol. ZAwinglius may regard the words in the Eucha= 


168 THE LORD’S SUPPER; 


rist as he pleases; let them be ¢mperative or conces- 
stve, potential or descriptive; I am not concerned 
about it. But I ask this one question,—Whether 
these same potential words of Christ are false or 
tvue words? If they are false words, Christ will 
answer them, and we have nothing to do with it. But 
if they are true words, then we cheerfully reply, that 
even the Enthusiasts must acknowledge that Christ gave 
his body in the Eucharist, for his words are potential. 
Christ in the first administration spoke them, and did 
not speak falsely, when he said, ‘ Take, eat, this is my 
body.” Just so too the sun and moon stood in the sky, 
when he said, Gen. 1, 16, “ Let there be a sun and 
moon,” and hence these were no false or ineffectual words. 
And thus his word here is not merely descriptive, but a 
word of power, which is capable of performing whatever 
the sense implies: Psalm 33, 9: “ He spake, and it was 
done,”’ especially because it was here first spoken, and 
they are words producing action. ‘Thus we have main- 
tained this first administration of the Eucharist, which 
they themselves even yield us by their acknowledgments. 

o2. Now we shall examine also, how this delicate 
genius makes a figurative word out of this causative word 
as, and how he will adopt our interpretation. ‘‘ Where 
the words are potential,”’ says he, ‘it does not follow, 
that the event must occur if we pronounce them, but the 
expressions only remain concerning the event which oc- 
curred. Now, in the administration of the Eucharist, 
when we say, ‘This is my body,’ it will not there- 
fore happen that Christ’s body will be present. Hence 
there is only bread there. It is merely bread which 
is there, and therefore the word is must be figu- 
rative.”’ ‘Thus our interpretation is erroneous, and the 


THE LORD'S SUPPER» 169 


Enthusiasts are right. He pursues this argument no 
further than that our interpretation, though correct in re- 
ference to the first administration of the Eucharist, ts 
not so in succeeding administrations. If I here inguire, 
who has given this genius the power to divide the words, 
or by what arguments will he prove, that the words in the 
Eucharist must be divided thus, and separated from one 
another, some into words of command, and some into 
words of causation ; he pretends not to give any other 
answer than to say: “ He hopes that no one can say 
- there are words of command in the Eucharist, by which 
the body of Christ is caused to be present.”’ Thus his 
proof rests upon his hope, and yet he makes very ar- 
rogant pretensions, that he sustains himself upon the 
word of God, and the plain declarations of Scripture. 
Whoever will base his creed upon the expectation of this 
gentus, may ever continue hereafter to believe that bread 
only is present in the administration of the Eucharist, 
for this is the foundation which this belief should rea- 
sonably have. 

53. We say, however, on the contrary, that this 
gentus is teaching us again what we know already, ani 
contimually omits that which he ought to teach, employs / 
me a sort of malignant artifice, in order thus to sepa-| 
rate and divide the words of the Eucharist. He ought | 
to prove that they should be thus divided, when at the 
same time they all stand in contiguity with each other, ᾿ 
neatly in one place,—‘< Δ ae eat, this is my body,’’— 
and they are not our words, but the very words of Christ 
himself, 

o4. In addition to this, although the words, “ This 
is my body,” were essentially causative, when they, are 


forced here, and separated = the others in a nook te 
15 


170 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


themselves, yet they are also pure words of command, 
because they are interwoven and bound up with words — 
of command. ForI do most earnestly hope, yes, I knows τ 
most certainly, that all Christians are bound, by the n=" Ἢ 
stitution and the command of Christ, to pronounce these 
words in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, and 

the Enthusiasts, I maintain, are not so obstinate in thet 
opinion as to leave out these words witha good conscience, ἣν Ξ 
If then we are obliged to retain and pronounce them in the 
Kucharist, they must assuredly be words of command, ἊΝ. 
for the very reason because they are connected with ως 
words of command, and it avails nothing thus to sepa- 
rate them from these words of command, as this genius 
maliciously pretends. But if these cawsaizve words are 
united with words of command, they are no longer merely 
causative words, but they are also words of command ; 
for all that they express takes place by virtue of the 
divine words of command, through which they are 
spoken. 

55. Soin Matt. 21, 21, stands an example of cau- 
sative words, declaring what the disciples might say, 
“Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea,” 
which, if any one merely pronounces, are attended with 
no such effect, and they remain causative words. 
But where Christ connects words of command with 
them, and says, “If ye shall,” in faith, “say unto 
this mountain, Be thou removed,” &c., then in real- 
ity they no longer remain mere causative words, but 
the event occurs, which they command, if they are 
spoken in accordance with his command. Then again, 
if a priest is baptizing, and says, “1 baptize thee,” &c., 
these are purely causative words; but because they are 
connected with the words of command, ιν δ si 


LS 
ἧς 


ag 


4 .ω΄᾽ 


ν' 


ς 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 171 


says, Matt. 28, 29, “ Go hence and baptize,” they must 
necessarily constitute a baptism before God. And if 
eter or Paul were to say, ‘ Thy sins be forgiven thee,” 


“4 
. as Christ said to Mary Magdalene, Luke 7, 48, though 


C 


Α 


they are merely causative words, those sins are πὐρῦν 
as the words declare, for this very reason, because they are 
connected with words of command, where Christ says, 
ar 20, 22, 23, “Reccive ye the Holy Ghost,” 
_* Whosesoever sins ye remit,’ &c. 

56. And if these words, Gen. 1, Let there be a 
sun and moon, were connected in this manner with 
words of injunction, and we were commanded to repeat 
them, you would soon behold whether God had spoken a 
falsehood, and whether there would not be a sun, when ἢ 
should speak to a star, or to the sky. But no such in- 
junction being connected with these words, no sun will 
appear, even if [ repeat them. 

57. So also were there an injunction, that I should 
speak these causative words in reference to the water,— 
“This is wine,”—you would soon see whether wine 
would not appear. Hence it is all nothing but noise and 
empty verbosity in this genzus, thus to divide the causative 
words from the injunction in the same text in which they 
stand connected, and in which there isa command to speak 
them, and to compare them to other examples of causative 
expressions, which are nowhere connected with an in- 
junction or with words of command. This in reality isa 
sophistical and malicious method of treating the words of 
God; but among them it is called Scripture and creed 
which cannot admit our interpretation. 

58. Since then he has not yet, in this way, es- 
tablished his figurative meaning, nor overthrown our in- 
terpretation, we now inquire Soutien, whether Christ has 


- 


179 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


commanded us to tell a falsehood, when he gives the zn- | 

junction, and commands us to repeat the causative words, 

“Take, eat, this is my body,” because they are altogether | 
spoken in his own person, and as hisown words? If he 
as commanded us to speak falsely, let him see to it; but if 
8 has commanded us to speak truly, then, most assu- 
redly his body must be present in the Eucharist, by vir- 
tue, not of our speaking, but of his command, injunction, 
and operating power. And thus have we maintained 
not only the first administration of the Eucharist, but all 
others which are administered according to the command 
and institution ef Christ our Lord. . 

59. If they now ask, “ Where is the power which 
causes the body of Christ to be present in the Eu- 
charist, when we say, ‘This is my body?” fF an- 
swer—Where is the power that causes a mountain 
to be removed and cast into the sea, when we say, 
“ΒΡ thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea?’’ 
Certainly it is not in the power of our speaking, but in 
the command of God, who has eonnected his command 
with our speaking. And then too, where was the power 
which caused the water to flow from the rock, because 
Moses did nothing more than strike upon it?) Were it 
enough merely to strike, we might Cause all the stones 
to change into water; but for this purpose is the com- 
mand of God, and Moses possessed no other power, but 
merely to speak the declarative words, “1 strike the 
rock.’ Anexpression which 1 too could easily make, but 
no water, however, would issue, for the injunction ᾿ 8 
committed to Moses, and has not been committed to me. 

60. So here too, even if I were to say over all 
bread, “ This is the body of Christ,” no effect ¢ 

would ensue; but if, according to his institut 


{ 
\ a. 
[ a. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. . 179 


>» 
an 


ie command, he having commanded us to speak and, 


| mand and authority with our speaking. But if, accord- 
ing to the high-sounding logic of this genius, it were 
_ proper to separate the command of God from our speak- 
» ing; he would have no need of teaching us, that our speak- 
ing would then be ineffectual, for we know this well 
| enough. But on this point he should give us an an- 
| swer, and prove by his logic, in instances where the 
injunction and speaking stand in connection, that God 
is actually guilty of falsehood and treachery, and ne 
| such effect at all will occur. This vaunting Spirit, how- 
ever, must always be disgorging his explanations on 
| points different from those on which the question depends, 
| or which the subject requires. 
61. But had 1 undertaken to write expressly against 
this genius, I would here ask a curious question, namely, 
‘‘ Since he contends so strenuously, Quod verbum facti 
| non efficiat factum, sed narret factum—that a causa- 
tive word does not work out that which it declares, but 
it only relates the event; since he undoubtedly does ac- 
knowledge that the event occurred in the first Supper 
, of Christ—that the body of Christ was given at table— 
why does he feel obliged to torture himself so much in 
| showing that these words are merely descriptive ?”’ 
| ) Any. labor on this point, would be vain and idle 
| yn, because he has placed the whole force of 
| his argument upon the fact of the words standing 
in the descriptive or declarative form, and merely speak- 
ing concerning the event; he admits, however, that 


% # 4 . . . . z 
τ command, I say in the Eucharist, “ This is my body,” 
then it really is his body, not in consequence of our) 
speaking or declarations, but in consequence of his) 


to act in this manner, and having connected his com-| 


τα 


174 THE LORD’S SUPPER. | : 


the event did once occur, that is, t τ words 
were not merely declaraiive. Well, so this genius 
has really acknowledged, that in the first Eucharist, 
the body of Christ was actually given to be eaten, and 
he does not deny that this event did once occur; but he 
insists that the words have no further power, whenever 
they may be spoken thereafter. 


62. Here I would inquire what this man has done 
with his judgment, with his sense of modesty and shame? _ 


Kor he says that his reasons for believing that the 


body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist, are these: 


‘“* The Scripture and the Creed will not admit this inter- 
pretation of the words of Christ; the absurdity of this 
definition is evident to the candid intelligence of the 
mind.’? Ifthe body of Christ were present in the first 
administration of the Eucharist, how then can its pres- 
ence be contrary tc the Scripture and the Creed? If it 
is contrary to the Scripture and the Creed for Christ’s 
body to be in the Eucharist, how would he then have been 
present in the first administration of the Eucharist ?—for I 
speak not here concerning unworthy officiators, whether 
they can consecrate it or not, but concerning the 
words of Christ, ‘* This is my body,”’ concerning which 
they declare, they exclaim, they vociferate, that it is 
contrary to the Creed and the Scripture for Christ’s 
body to be present there, agreeably to those words, even 
if there were nothing but saints there. 

63. And though this man has here again bitten him- 
self in the tongue, cal though he admits that it is ἐν ΨηΗ 
trary to the Scripture nor the Creed, for the body | of 
Christ, according to their import, to be present in. the 
first Supper, yet he contends that it does not follow that 
he is present in future administrations of this sacra ent. 


ον 


nye 


_—sss THE LORD’S SUPPER. 175 
' as 
~~ 2 not exclaim so loudly, and contend 


with so much arrogance that our interpretation is 
contrary to the Scripture and the Creed, as they 
have been doing to a most provoking excess, but 
contrary to future occurrences of the kind in the con- 
tinued administration of this sacrament. For it is an 


‘Inguiry totally different, whether 1 or you enjoy the 


body of Christ in the Eucharist, or whether the origi- 


nal interpretation be in opposition to the Scripture and 
the Creed. Ifitis not in opposition to the Scripture and 


the Creed, as the first Supper proves, even by the 
acknowledoment of this man, we beg them in the most 
friendly manner, to suffer us to teach and_ believe, 
what they must acknowledge even in opposition to 
themselves, that it is not in opposition to the Scripture 
and the Creed. But they have Scripture and a Creed 
im opposition to this, out of which they wish’ to 
answer, as those who obstinately contend against their. 
own Confession. For it is sufficient for us for them to 
admit that it is not in opposition to the Scripture and the 
Creed, as they still continue to vociferate, since in doing 
so they render themselves notorious as liars, and their 
malignant intentions cannot be concealed. 

64. Now, because we have convicted this spirit of 
falsehood, that he has misrepresented things in opposition 
to himself, and has acknowledged to us, that our inter- 
pretation,—that the body of Christ is present in the Eu- 
charist,—is not contrary to the Scripture nor the Creed, 
(she: nevertheless contends,) but only to the occurrence 
oft his event in future administrations, we desire to adhere 
to this interpretation. For as it is not contrary to the 
Scripture nor the Creed, that the words of Christ, accord- 


ing to our a ΡΝ , prove the body of Christ to have 


176 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


been present in the first administration of the Eucharist, 
we cannot conceive any reason whatever, why in any suc- 
ceeding administrations of the Eucharist, it should be con- 
trary to the Scripture and the Creed. That which is not 
in opposition to the Scripture and the Creed, cannot be 
opposed to any of the consequences which they declare. 

65. Nowis not thisa most excellent, circumspect ge- 
neus? Even in the very division of his article, where he 
intends to prove that our interpretation is in opposition 
to the Creed, he brings the subject before him, and 
proves that there are causative words in the Eu- 
charist, and he does not perceive in that very process of 
reasoning, the direct demonstration that our interpreta- 
tion is correct in the first administration of the Kucha- 
rist, and that it is not opposed to the Creed. For words 
of causation actually produce the first time what they 
declare, or else they are not causative words, as he 
himself acknowledges. But he demonstrates in direct 
opposition to himself, either that there are no words 
of positive declaration in the Eucharist, or that our 
interpretation is right in the first administration of the 
Eucharist. 

66. But ifany one shall say, that Christ has not com- 
manded these words to be spoken in the Eucharist,— 
“This is my body ;’’—I reply, ‘It is true that it does 
not stand there immediately in the text, that you shall 
pronounce the words, ‘ This is my body,’ and no hand 
is painted there, which might point to the command. 
But let them be as bold as they wish to be, so daring as 
to omit these words, and suffer them to stand as unbid- 
den words. For it is also true that we do not read 
there in the text,—‘ You shall pronounce these words : 
Take, eat,’ then again, we do not read, ‘ You shall take 


FHE LORD’S SUPPER. 177 


“ 


this bread—our bread—and blessit.’ But let us see who 
will be so daring as to say no bread shall be taken and 
blessed, or that it shall not be said, ‘ Take and eat.’ ”’ 

87. Do I hear distinctly, that Christ must set down 
these words,—“ Thus shalt thou speak, thus shalt thou 
do,’’—in their constituent characters, and that it 15 not 
enough to say as he has said in the conclusion, ‘‘ This do 
in remembrance of me??? If we are to do that which he 
did, surely we must take the bread and bless it, break and 
distribute it, saying, “ This is my body ;” for all this is 
comprehended in these imperative words, “ This do ;”’ 
and we must not leave out these words, for St. Paul says, 
“δ has received it from the Lord, and thus delivered it 
unto us,” 2 Cor. 11, 23. These words too, must cer- 
tainly be imperative, and will not allow us to twitch 
out or to alter a single point. 

68. Thus it is certainly true, that Christ has nowhere 
delivered these words letter by letter to us, ‘ You shall 
make my body out of the bread.”* But what necessity 
was there for this? He has said indeed, that we shal: 
pronounce these words, ‘ This is my body,” in his own 
person and name, according to his command and injunc- 
tion, when he says, “ This do.” Nor do we make his 
body out of the bread, as this genius falsely charges us 
with believing. Indeed we do not say that his body 
becomes so out of the bread; but when we say, ““ This 
is my body,” we say in effect, “It is his body which 
was formed long ago and came into being ; for Christ did 
not command us to say, “‘ This becomes my νὸς τας or, 
“here make my body,” but “This ἐδ my body.” 

69. And now, because we are speaking of these 
words of injunction, we must add here a few remarks, 
to caution our adherents against the empty verbosity of 


2 = 
178 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


this genius. For it is not possible to stop the mouth of 
Satan ; he is like the wind, which finds (as we say) the 
narrowest hole. Words of injunction are of two species : 
some have faith as a requisite element connected with 
them, as those in Matt. 21, 21, about removing the 
mountain; and in Mark 16, 17, concerning the signs 
which should follow those who believe. Now if any one 
should speak these words without faith to the mountain, 
“ Be thou removed,”’ and boast that he acts according 
to the injunction, the event would still not occur, because 
Christ has expressly connected faith with this injunction. 

70. The other species are those in connection with 
which faith is not a necessary requisite, as these words 
in the Eucharist, “6 Take, eat,’’ for in this ordinance, the 
unworthy and the unbelieving also eat the body of Christ, 
as Judas and many of the Corinthians did. Hence those 
who are engaged in the administration of the Eucharist, 
must not necessarily have faith; in the same way too, 
those concerned in the administration of baptism, are not 
bound to believe as a necessary requisite to the institu- 
tion. And again, we may say the same as to those who 
preach, and all those who exercise the duties of public 
office. For Christ has included the validity of all these 
in the power of his word, and not in the holiness of 
men, in order that we might depend upon the immu- 
tability of his word, and of the sacraments. I say this 
because it seems to be the greatest offence to the En- 
thusiasts, for the unworthy to baptize, to hold mass, or 
to preach. And they do not perceive, that they them- 
selves are very likely still more offensive before God, or no 
one indeed can know, how devout they are, as they still 
cannot suffer the sacraments to remain and to be admin- 
istered, according to the words and the command of God. 


ο THE LORD’S SUPPER. 179 


71. Then the leader of these Enthusiasts draws my 
finger as if I were blind over the expression, “ Such 
thing,” or, “this thing do thou,” which St. Paul shall 
also explain, “ As often as ye eat this bread,”’ ἕο. Out 
of this expression he wishes it to be concluded, that, by 
the expression, ‘this do,’’ Christ has reference to eating 
of the bread, and not to that of the body of Christ. Cer- 
tainly if St. Paul had said, ‘As often as you eat this 
bread which is not the body of Christ,’’—as this genius 
has appended from the reveries of his own brain,—there 
would have been no need of laying my finger uponit. 1 
would have seen it long ago more than five steps distant. 
I always hoped that they would produce some Scripture 
authority, and sure enough they produced their own 
dreams. Hence I say again, ‘I do most earnestly wish 
them to lay their finger on the preceding words, where 
Christ has reference to the bread, and nevertheless says, 
“This is my body.”? Here also stands a word “ This,” 
and it would readily allow itself to be grasped by the 
fingers of this Enthusiast, which presses me still harder, 
still more strongly, that the body of Christ was eaten in 
the bread, than his ‘ This,’ out of which he wishes 
to make mere bread, as my word “ This” and his 
word “ This’? have reference to one and the same 
bread, as they acknowledge; and still with my word 
“this” stands the expression, “It is my body,” but 
with his word “ ἐλ δ᾽ does not stand the expression, 
“15 not my body,” but he himself must place it there, 
and skip over the expression connected with my word 
« This’’—the true, the diligent guide to the interpreta= 
tion of Scripture! 

72. Now, let all the world be a judge between me 
and this genius, which word bread must yield to the | 


80 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


other. My word bread stands in immediate connection 
with this text, ‘‘ Eat, this is my body ;”’ and it explains 
itself by the very expressive words, that this bread is the 
body of Christ. The word bread of this genius, stands 
immediately connected with the text, ‘“‘ This do,” or, 
“as often as ye eat this bread,’’ and it does not ex- 
plain whether it is merely bread, or whether it is not the 
body of Christ; but this genius must improve the text, 
and say it is not the body of Christ, as if he had a com- 
mand to say so; yes, he has a command, but it is from 
Satan! Now, if one must yield to the other, his 
must justly yield to mine, because his is bare and 
destitute of any elucidation, but mine carries its elu- 
cidation with it; or he will have to talk otherwise, 
if he wishes to prove that my word this must yield 
to his: merely to point with the finger, will not gain 
the argument. 

73. And if he wishes to discuss the subject with a 
desire for the truth, he should not show us with his fin- 
ger how his word this refers to the bread; we could 
discover this fact without the aid of this. genius, 
without his art and his elucidation. But he ought first 
of all to suppress this text: ‘“ Eat, this is my body.” 
if it were suppressed so that here bread would be 
preached, and not the body of Christ, we would know 
perfectly well ourselves that his ¢hzs should refer 
merely to the bread. But he does not do this, and 
thus it is a petitto principit, a begging of the question, 
‘ineffectual loquacity, because he does not answer the 
precise point to which the question alludes, as I always 
complain. For we say at least, that if the first th¢s has 
reference to the body of Christ, his ¢hzs must also have 
reference to the same ; because they both have reference 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 18] 


to the bread, and the first stands immediately in connec- 


tion with the words body of Christ, agreeably to the 


words, ‘ Eat, this is my body.” 

74. Besides, we do not allow him the assumption, that 
where Christ says, ‘‘ This do,” it must be equivalent to 
the expression of Paul, “ As often as ye eat this bread.” 
The genius makes the assumption indeed, but he 
offers no proof, and this is customary with him. For 
these words, ‘As often as ye eat this bread,” speak only 


of eating and drinking. Now, were there some other 


Enthusiast, equally contentious, he would obstinately 


-insist upon it, that we should not take, give thanks, 


break, distribute, and bless this bread, but eat it only, 
as the words declare, and that we should thus snatch the 
bread in the mouth from the table, or.devour it from the 
oven. But if the words, “As often as ye eat the 
bread,” allow us to take it, break it, give thanks, 
and distribute it, beloved, they must also allow that 
other especial service, namely, the blessing, where 
Christ declares, “This is my body.” But if this 
special portion of the service be not allowed to be 
observed, I will then also contend, with the same force 
of argument, that we must, according to the letters of 
the passage, only eat immediately ; we must not take the 
bread, nor break it, nor bless it, nor distribute it. For 
St. Paul does not say, “ As often as ye take, break, 
give thanks, or biess the bread, or distribute it,’ but he 
only says, ‘ As often as ye eat it.” 

76. Do you perceive how delicate a thing it is ta 
sport thus with the words and letters of the passoaee 
And hence this only must be considered Scripture, which 
is IN Opposition to our interpretation. Therefore, we 


contend, that Christ, by the word this, or this do, a dees not 


16 


182 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


have reference merely to ealing the bread, but to the 
whole ordinance of the Eucharist ; and St. Paul also has 
the same reference, though his words only speak of eating 
the bread. For he certainly intended to command them 
to eat the bread, as Christ had prescribed it, and not as 
the Enthusiasts wish to represent, though he could not 
express this mode of eating merely by these words, “ eat- 
ing the bread,”? but he had previously taught it suf- 
ficiently clear, with many words. 

76. In the fifth place, he wishes to prove that our 
interpretation is opposed to the Creed, and he has again 
an immeasurable abundance to do, in order that he may 
teach us, in what inanner Christ died for us. For this 
man must always be teaching ine, that which I have 
long and frequently taught, all the time skipping 
over the point upon which he onght to produce an an- 
swer. For, through the grace of God, 1 am perfectly 
assured, that our Faith is, that Christ by his suffering, 
has released us from sins. All this he has no need of 
teaching tous. But how our interpretation in reference 
to the Eucharist is opposed to this Faith, as he insinu- 
ates and boastfully pretends, 1 would most gladly hear. 
~ But as to this, my friendly genius is a8 mute as a mouse; 
yes, he springs over it like a deer. But still he declares, 
“Tf it be taught that the bodily eating of Christ, pro- 
cures the forgiveness of sins, it 1s in Opposition to the 
Creed.” Lreply, “ This have I maintaired with fidel- 
ity 3 yes, | have said more, namely, that the bodily 

eating of Christ, without the spirit and without faith, is 
poison and death.” Upon what then does the genius on 
rect his answer? or against whom does he contend? Now 
do you suppose that the man isin his right mind, who con- 
tends against Luther, and yet’ contends avainst no one? 


ttwa 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 183 


77. For, let it be granted even that the body of 
Christ is not eaten in the Eucharist, for the sake 
of our sins, how will it follow from this, that his 
body is not present in the Eucharist, or that it is 
opposed to the Creed? For if Christ be so impo- 
tent or limited, that the forgiveness of sins belongs to 
him only while suspended for crucifixion, I will also 
show, by the same artifice of argument, that it is in op- 
position to the Creed, for Christ to be in heaven; and I 
will bring forward all the expressions of this genzus thus: 
* St. Paul does not say that Christ has ascended to hea- 
yen for our sins, but that he was crucified for our sins; 
therefore he is not in heaven, and does not there forgive 
our sins.”’ Again, “δ. Paul does not say, that Christ 
was born for our sins, nor did he live, but died only for 
our sins; therefore he has neither been born, nor has he 
lived.”’ In this very manner, the genius here reasons, 
«The body of Christ is not eaten for our sins, but he has 
died for cur sins; therefore his body is not to be eatenin the 
Eucharist.’ In this way we should make nothing out 
of Christ, but one who must always be suffering on the 


cross for our sins, in order that we may not reason in — 


opposition to the Creed, by professing to believe in other 
articles that Christ is present, forgiving sins, a power 
which this genzus will only admit of Christ on the cross. 

73. This blind Enthusiast does not discern, that the 
merit of Christ and the distribution of that merit, are 


two things entirely distinct, and he confuses them one with / 


the other, like a creature destitute of reason. Christ 
did once obtain the forgiveness of sins on the cross, and 


— 


a 


secured it for us; but he now dispenses this same_ 
forgiveness wherever he is, at all hours, and in all places, 


as Luke writes, ch. 24, v. 46: ‘‘ Thus it is written, and 


154 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 
dead on the third day,’’—in which consists his merit,—_ 
** And that repentance and remission of sins be preached 
in his name,’’—in which consists this distribution or dzs- 
pensation of hismerit. Yor this reason we say in the ad- 
ministration of the Eucharist, is the remission of sins, not 
in consequence of eating, or because Christ in this admin- 
istration merits or procures the remission of sins, but in 
consequence of the words through which he distributes 
unto us the remission of sins, and says: “ This is 
my body which is given for you.”? Here you per- 
ceive that we eat the body of Christ, as given for us; 
we hear this and believe it while eating ; and hence the 
remission of sins is dispensed here, which was obtained, 
however, on the cross. 

79. And well might I, in imitation of this man, in- 
geniously observe, ‘‘ Christ has not released us from sin 
by our preaching; hence it would be in opposition to the 
Creed for a man to seek forgiveness of sins in preaching. 
Beloved, where then shall it be sought? Yet has not 
Christ said that forgiveness of sins must be preached in 
jus name??? Again, ‘Christ has not redeemed us 
through our faith ; hence it is in opposition to the Creed 
to seek remission of sins as a consequence of faith.” 
Beloved, where then should it be sought? Yet Christ 
says, Whoever believes the same shall be saved, 
Mark 16, 16. Again, “Christ has not redeemed us 
through our baptism; hence it is in opposition to the 
Creed for any one to seek remission of sins in baptism.” 
Beloved, why then does Paul denominate baptism a 
washing of regeneration? Again, ‘ Christ has not re- 
deemed us through the Holy Ghost ; hence it is in opposi- 
tion to the Creed, for any one to seek remission of his 


THE LORD’S SUPPER: 155 


sins through the Holy Ghost.”” Beloved, where then? 
But he that is blind, cannot see any thing. This genius 
is altogether astray, and has become blind in reference to 
the Eucharist, and hence he cannot understand any part 
of the Christian doctrine aright. But we know that 


Christ once died for us, and that this death is dispensed ri 


by the means of preaching, baptizing, by the Holy Ghost, 
by reading, by faith, by the Eucharist, and just as he 
wishes, wherever he is and whatever he is doing. 

80. So carefully, however, did I write in my last 
little book, how our administration of the Eucharist, 
oust be regarded as consisting of two parts, namely, the 
word and the ealing ; and how the word requires faith 
and a spiritual eaféng m connection with the bodily, and 
they are entreated to prove how this can be in opposi- 
tion to the Creed. Still this man 15 shamelessly bold 
enough so frequently in all his books to utter his false- 


-hoods with pride and insolence, that I teach neither a 


spiritual eating nor faith, but onlya bodily eating. Read 
my book, and you will be compelled to say, that this 
man is a false, unscrupulous spirit, who charges me with 
teaching that the remission of sins is to be obtained only 
by a physical eating of the body of Christ, though he has 
read the contrary, and knows it to be my avowed opin- 
ion. With such falsehoods does he prolong his garrul- 
ous chatter, only for the purpose of avoiding the definite 
answer, showing how our interpretation is opposed to 


the Creed. Well! with these wicked artifices they will — 


come far short of overthrowing our interpretation, but 
they will only strengthen us the morey because they assail 
us with open falsehoods. For never can we believe, that 
the Christian Creed and notorious lies are the same thing: 

81. The same reasoning have I employed, with the 


Ἰὼ 
186 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 

utmost precision egainst the Heavenly Prophets, showing 
that the\facf and the application of Christ’s suffering, are 
not the same thing: Factum et applicatio facti, seu 
factum et usus factt. For the suffering of Christ oc- 
curred but once on the cross; but to whom would this 
be beneficial, if it were not distributed, applied, and 
brought into use? Yet how should it be used and dis- 
tributed, except through the word and the sacrament? 
For what purpose then ought these lofty spirits to read 
my book? ‘They know far better. Well, this too they 
~ have for their reward :—to believe the fact and the ap- 
plication to be one, and in reasoning upon it, to reduce 
themselves to folly and shame; not to see that in the 
administration of the Eucharist, the application of the 
passion is concerned, and not its actual occurrence. Well, 
this reward 1s due to those who read nothing, or carelessly 
read, in consequence of their pride and presumption, what 
has been written against them. 

82. This impotent driveller should prove that the 
body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist. This he 
omits, and goes on to prove that we are not redeemed 
in consequence of eating the body of Christ, but in con- 
sequence of his suffering. Who would have known 
this new discovery, had not this genzus brought it into 
notice? It is characteristic of this mystic, to discourse 
with great volubility about something which was not the 
object of inquiry, and to be always teaching what we 
know already, in order to shun the task of proving, what 
he had undertaken and was bound to prove. In this 
way he is aiways giving us greater strength, like a de- 
serter, who cannot honorably face his opponent. 
Well do we know that Christ has not redeemed us, 
through our reception of the Eucharist. No one 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 187 


has heard us assert that he has. But that it should 
follow from this circumstance, that there is nothing 
but mere bread in the Eucharist, we should be much 
pleased to hear, and we should warmly applaud this 
genius, if he will prove it. 

83. He is angry too, when we advise it not to be 
asked, how it comes to pass that the body of Christ is 
present in the Eucharist, but simply to believe the words 
of God ; an advice which we have faithfully given not to 
the illiterate, for they had no need of it, but to the 
noble, and even to the Enthusiasts themselves. Let 
them, however, mount up and investigate as they desire, 
only let them pay some regard to their own reputation, 
and prove how our interpretation is opposed to the 
Creed,—a thing which probably they may do on the 
ascension day of Satan. One thing, however, we fore- 
see pe. fectly distinct, that, in their investigations, they 
will convict themselves of notorious falsehoods, and cone 
tend against that which they themselves imagine, and no 
one else teaches. And in this connection it is proper to ὦ 
remark, that when they shall be wariing so high in their 
sublime and giddy elevation, they will finally mistake the 
property for the substance, and confuse the fact and its 
application together, like wortLless slovens, becoming 
thereby at variance with each other, undetermined in all 
their divisions, and always falling from one error into an- 
other without end. Such should be the reward which 
those receive, who will not believe, but only criticise the 
word of God. 

S4. In the sixth place, he wishes to prove, that the 
Scripture also is opposed to our interpretation. And 
first he presents these words: ‘* This is my body which 
is given for you.” It is not true that his body now ex- 


ἧς. 5 
res THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ists in the form in which it was given for us, for i€ was 
visibly givenforus. ‘This hasbeen answered above, show- 

- ing how this mystic has made a property out of the sub- 
stance, by a most vicious syllogism, in which there are four 
terms, not one of whichis universal, nothing being predica- 
ble, no distribution of the middle, and many other faults ; 
for the logicians know well that a mere property cannot 
be subsumed under a substantive term. This reckless 
mystic, however, calls this kind of reasoning Scripture 
and the word of God. 

85. ‘To speak in plain terms, we do not say, that the 
body of Christ is in the Kucharist in thesame form in which 
he was given for us,—for who would say so?—but that it 
is the same body which was given for us, not in the same 
form and mode, but in the same essence and nature. 
Now it can readily happen that an individual essence can 
be visible at one place and invisible at another. Alas! 
it is all folly. No one will answer us, but they only 
wish to clamor and boast unnecessarily. 

86. Again, he contends that our interpretation must 
be opposed to this text, ‘ As often as ye eat this bread,” 
&c; because the word ¢hzs here refers to bread, it must 
therefore in the other expression,—*‘ This is my body,””— 
refer to mere bread. ‘To this] reply, thatall this amounts 
to nothing, nor can this be shown to be a necessary conse- 
quence ; but we have already proved the opposite con- 
clusion, that in both places, the word ¢hzs refers to bread, 
which is the body of Christ, and that neither of them 
refers to common bread only. 

87. “Again,” hecontinues, “‘ The Lord was receiv- 
ed up into heaven,’ Mark 16, 19; ‘I leave the world, 
and go unto the Father,’ John16,28; ‘Iam no longer in 
the world, but they are in the world,’ John 17, 11; with 


» 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 189 


humerous passages more, in which it is declared that 
Christ is in heaven.”? Well, we also believe and assert 
all this, and there would be no necessity to teach us in 
this respect. But there would be a necessity to teach 
us that, because Christ is in heaven, his body cannot be 
present in the Eucharist. This incongruity they ought 
to prove, then we ourselves would be convinced that these 
passages are opposed to our interpretation. Now, we are 
always receiving instruction from him with great fluency 
on points which we know, and he skilfully keeps silence in 
reference to points about which we are inquiring ; hence 
on this account we must adhere to our own interpretation. 

88. And indeed Christ himself, Luke 24, 44, explains 
what is meant by “ being in the world,” where he says, 
“ These are the words which I spake unto you, when I 
was still with you.” What! Is he not still with them? 
still eating with them after his resurrection? But 
certainly he is not with them, in the manner he once 
was with them, that is, in a mortal form, and as one 
who must use this life in the present world, as St. 
Paul, 1 Cor, 15, 44, speaks concerning natural and 
spiritual men. But from these expressions no one can 
infer, that he cannot be present in a physical sense. 
For it is said, he spake with them face to face, and still 
he is not in the world. Thus also, “‘ The poor you have 
always with you, but me you have not always with you.” 
Here the text itself explains what is meant by the ex- 
pression with you ; and one thing it is well to observe, 


namely, that he is not with us, and so forth, as the poor. 


are. In reference to farther passages which they may 
introduce, it may immediately be replied, “ Christ is not 
with us as the poor are, mortal and earthly.” 

89, Hence they are not able in this way to make it 


190 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


out yet, that our interpretation is opposed to the Scrip=, 
ture, but it is a species cf logic peculiar to Zwinglius to 
mistake sudstance for attribute, the word which for what 
kind: as if I were to say, ‘ Christ is not present in the 
Eucharist, in a certain form, therefore he is not present 
physically :᾿ “ Christ is not with us in a certain form, 
therefore he is not with us at all;” arguing from the 
particular tothe universal. ‘The bailiffis not in the bath 
with his red pantaloons, therefore he is not in the bath.” 
* The king does not set crowned at table, therefore he is 
notat the table.”? All this is the sport of childrenand gos- 
sips, as the schools are well aware, but among the Enthu- 
siastsit must be regarded as Scripture, and Christian belief. 

90. And if, supported by these passages, they should 
insist that Christ is no longer with us, they must also 
contend, to be consistent in their reasoning, that he is 
not with us spiritually. For the words stand bluntly 
there, “1 am no longer with you,” John 14, 23, which 
declare positively that he is not with usatall. Yes,” 
say they, ‘‘ we have passages expressly declaring, that 
he is with us spiritually, as John 14, 2, “we will make 
our abode with him,’’ and Paul, Ephes. 3, 17, Christ 
dwelleth in your hearts, &c. I reply, “If they, my 
beloved, can find these passages opy.osed to the above 
conclusion, why then can they not find the text in the 
Eucharist opposed to the same? If Christ can be pres- 
ent with them in a certain form, not prevented by the 
text,—‘ I am not with you,’—he can also be present 
with us in the Eucharist, notwithstanding the same text, 
‘Tam not with you.’ Butif this text does not invalidate 
their passages concerning the spiritual essence of Christ, 
it does not invalidate our text concerning the invisible 
presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 


-----.-- ------ἔ-. Cr  O----- ove 0 000€C Oe eee eee er er ++ -. ὑ---..----- 


‘> 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 191 


᾿ 
9], Thus this apparent contradiction is as much 
against them, as against us; and by whatever means 
they extricate themselves, they extricate us also. 
And our interpretation remains unimpaired: ‘ This 
is my body.’ For if they prove any thing of con- 
sequence, by the passages which they produce, they 
prove that Christ is not in the Eucharist visible, 
in a mortal and physical mode of existence,;—a_ thing 
which it is not necessary to prove, for we acknowl- 
edge it all. But this is the proof which they ought to 
furnish, namely, that our interpretation is false, and that 
Christ is guilty of falsehood when he says, ‘* This is my 
body,” but there will be no one to do this, where there 
are none but shufEing visionaries; they only soil an abund- 
ance of good paper, with their fruitless, unnecessary ar- 
‘guments, and merely stultify our poor simple Christians. 

92. And then there is no solid reasoning in what he 
prattles about the passover, where Paul, 1 Cor. 5, 7, 
ealls Christ the passover, and from this he wishes 
to infer, that as Christ in that passage is not ‘the 
natural passover, but a new passover by a figure. of 
speech, so ifiere is in these words also,—“ This is my 
body,’’—a figure of Speech. For he had previously ae- 
knowledged, that it must not follow of necessity, because 
there is a fioure of speech in one passage of Scripture, 
that there must be a ‘figure here also; but such a conse- 
quence or necessity must be proved, and we have writ- 
ten enough already concerning figures of speech. All 
that is necessary for this mystic to do, is, to write only 
a book, and to flatter his followers, in order that he may 
not answer in the mean time what he should answer, 
what he is bound to answer, but still to have the ap- 
pearance of giving an answer. He should prove that our 


192 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


mterpretation is opposed to the Scripture ; so he teaches 
us that Christ is the passover; this he calls a trope. 
We shall suffer them to speak and to act as they like; 
for it is not answered in this way, how our inter- 
pretation is opposed to the Scriptures. 
_ 93. Then the mystic becomes excessively enraged, 
because I have ridiculed their figures so freely, and he 
censures me prodigiously. But to censure, to be angry, 
or to rave, is not in our view, Scripture which is opposed 
to our interpretation. However one who cannot make 
a reply, may reasonably become angry and rave, as a 
mother may teach her child, ‘‘ Dear child, if you cannot 
overcome, cnly begin to quarrel. I have thrown a 
club among the dogs, and by the noise 1 know which 
one I have hit.” 

94. Iam inclined to view this wiry mystic, as I would 
a madman, who might have a crossbow, and with loud 
outcry and bravado, seize the instrument, bend the bow, 
and draw the chord, with a boastful threat, to sphit a nail 
in the target; but in consequence of his great haste and 
precipitation no arrow would be laid upon it, and so he 
would let fly the string, and so soon as he would hear 
the whizzing, he would throw away the crossbow, and 
exclaim, ‘There it sticks: the nail is split in two.” 
When others would laugh and tell him that there was 
no arrow upon the implement, he would abuse them, be- 
cause they would not take it for an arrow. Exactly in 
this way acts our mystic. With great arrogance he pro- 
claims that he 15 going to answer us, and hit the mark; 
but he always forgets the arrow, and not once does he 
give the appropriate answer. But nevertheless the clat- 
tering of the tongue delights him, he fancies that the ar- 
row is sped, and that the nail in the targetissplit. But 


THE LORD’S SUPPER: 108 


we are accustomed to this silly marksmanship ; indeed 
should an arrow be laid upon his crossbow, we should 
still be well assured, that he would shoot it in the 
ashes, or three ells above the wall, before he would 
hit us. 

95. So they introduce passages from Paul, Col. 3, 
1, 2, “If then ye be risen with Christ, seek those things 
which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand 
of God.” “Set your affection on things above, not on 
things on the earth.” “Here, hoke © they exclaim, 
“‘ thou eater of flesh, and drinker of blood, thou mayest 
hear, that the body of Christ is not to be sought in the 
Eucharist; for the Eucharist is administered upon earth, 
while Christ is above at the right hand of God.” 

96. Now here it is not necessary for this man to show 
us what St. Paul meant by the expression, ‘‘on the 
earth,’ notwithstanding the force of the passage depends 
on this expression; but he rushes over thus rudely 
along, as his capricious spirit leads him to do. Should 
I now make the inquiry, ‘“‘ Why they go to preach- 
ing, and seek the consolations of the Gand? Uti ΕἸ ἫΝ 
inquire also, *‘ Why they maintain the celebration οἵ 
the Lord’s Supper? why they love and befriend their 
neighbors ?’’ Father, mother, master, servant, and our 
eodibes: are all upon earth; but according to this rea- 
soning, we must not seek them; we must honor, rever- 
ence, serve, or love no one. Would not this be noble? 
All this affection, however, must occur onearth, Yet St. 
Paul says we must not seek that which is upon earth. 
Indeed the disciples have committed great iniquity, be- 
cause they followed after Christ; for Christ was upon 
earth, hecame himself to earth, Paulalso himself preached 


and visited the Christians here and there upon the earth. 
17 


194 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


What do you think? Have they not strained this pas- 
sage most wonderfully ? 

97. We, however, are now fully aware of this evil 
genius. We are aware that he is only abusing us, and 
through his egregious arrogance, he considers those mat- 
ters of no consequence, which he should feel bound to 
answer, as he can secure a sufficient number of followers 
by his unnecessary verbosity. So we shall once more 
suffer his loquacity, and bid him defiance to subvert 
our interpretation with his nonsense ; and we regard it as 
a confirmation of our belief, because he can bring 
nothing: against us but his doleful, impotent outcry. 

98. By the expression, ‘on the earth,” St. Paul 
means this earthly life, the manner in which the world 
lives, in fornication and every species of unrighteousness 5 
for he speaks concerning the death of the old Adam, as 
his words stand here, and plainly declare, “If ye then 
be risen with Christ,” Col. 3, 1. And afterwards in 
verse Sth, ““ Mortify therefore your members which are 
upon earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, 
evil concupiscence,’’ &c. Here we discover that he 
means by the expression,’ “ on the earth,” an earthly, 
gross mode of living according to the old Adam, as men in 
the world without the Spirit of God do live. For this is 
the manner in which the old Adam lives; this mode of liv- 
ing we should not seek after, as St. Paul says; for we 
should die with Christ to the world and a worldly life, 
living henceforth divinely in Christ. 

99. Accordingly we do freely declare that our Eu- 
charist is not upon earth,—we do not seek it upon earth. 
For if Satan will now prove, that we regard our Eu- 
charist and the body of Christ as fornication, evil 
concupiscence, hatred, and unrighteousness, we shall 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 195. 


confess that we are acting unrighteously, in seeking 
Christ upon earth. But if this is not proved, we 
declare that he lies in his infernal malignity, and mis- 
represents St. Paul, by asserting that the body of 
Christ is upon the earth, if he is present in the 
Eucharist. For this St. Paul does not call being 
upon the earth, as we have shown above. Here you 
have an example of the Enthusiasts; you see how 
accurately they investigate the Scripture, and you be- 
hold the spirit which speaks through them. For this 
evil spirit knows well enough what St. Paul means by 
the expression, ‘on the earth,”’ but he still induces his 
deluded Enthusiasts to say, that we mean that the 
body of Christ is on the earth in the Eucharist. On 
these principles do they wish to establish their Eucha- 
rist, and to suppress ours. 

100. This spirit of evil practises this raillery even 
with a passage of St. Paul, in 2 Cor. 5, 16, 17, We 
know Christ no longer according to the flesh, and we 
are in Christ a new creature. ‘These expressions are 
forced altogether to give the inference: “‘ The body of 
Christ is not present'in the Eucharist.’ Well, once 
more we suffer ourselves to be railed at; let it be seen, 
what this spirit will gain by his mockery. It is incum- 
bent upon this Enthusiast to show here, what St. Paul 
means by the expression, “according to the flesh,” in 
which indeed lays the whole stress of this expression. 
‘Yes,’ says this Enthusiast, “1 have no reference to 
you; it is enough that my followers admit it; it must, 
however, be received indeed.”? Well, we will then 
be humble, and point out the same. 

101. St. Paul speaks here concerning the death of 
the old Adam, and he wishes to say, that we should no 


196 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


longer live according to the flesh, but as a new creature 
in Christ. Hear his words yourself: “If one died 
for all,” says he, “‘then were all dead,” &c., 2 
Cor. 5, 14. What else, however, can this be than 
as he says in the passage, Colos. 3, 3: We are dead 
with Christ; and Rom. 6, 6, Our old man its cru- 
cified with Christ; and here it follows, “ And that 
he died for ali, that they which live should not hence- 
forth live unto themselves, but unto him which died 
for them, and rose again,” 2 Cor. 5, 15. What 
else does this mean, than that we should live anew 
in Christ ? 

102. Then verse 16, we read: “ Wherefore hence- 
forth know we no man after the flesh.” Here let Paul 
and the Enthusiast discuss with each other. The En- 
thusiast says, to know according to the flesh, is to observe 
something bodily present, or for any one to be present with 
his body as Christ is in the Eucharist ; this is incorrect, 
and Paul deniesit. Beloved, why then does Paul know 
his Corinthians living bodily before him? Why does he 
knowhis own body? Why dothe Enthusiasts know their 
companions bodily before them? Why do they know 
their bodily Eucharist? Is not all this a bodily thing, 
and in accordance with the flesh bodily present? Now 
St. Paul, however, here forbids this to be understood ac- 
cording to the flesh. But if they ean so understand these 
things according to the flesh, that St. Paul must not be 
against them, beloved, why should he then be opposed to 
us, because we recognise the body of Christ in the Eu- 
charist? But let the railers rail on; let him be the 
leader who can best rail against the other. 

103. By the expression, “after the flesh,” St. 
Paul means in this passage, what appears fleshly, or 


κι 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 197 


after a fleshly manner, and not according to the spirit, 
or in a spiritual manner, as he says, 2 Cor. 10, 3, 
“Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after 
the flesh ;”’ that is, not in a fleshly manner. According 
to the flesh does not signify in the flesh, as these men 
fancy, but with the force of an adverb, it signifies in a 
fleshly manner, or with the feeling and affection of flesh, 


the manner in which flesh acts. “In the flesh,’’ and 


‘“‘according to the flesh,”’ are far different from each 
other; Paul, Gal. 2, 20, lived in the flesh, but not, how- 
ever, according to the flesh: he lived in the faith of 
Christ. For in Rom. 8, 6, 13, he calls a life according 


to the flesh, death, when he says, “If ye live after the 


flesh, ye shall die.”’ 


104. With great power does the text of St. Paul - 


contend, that the following is his meaning: Because we 
are all dead with Christ to the world and the flesh, 
henceforth we should neither live nor think according to 
the flesh, or in a fleshly manner, and we should know no 
man in the manner of the flesh, but spiritually. For to 
know others in the manner of flesh, is to know them no 
farther than the flesh has power to know. Now the 
flesh only has power to seek its own gratification 
from every man, to hate, to envy, and to do all manner 
of evil to an enemy, to seek pleasure, favor, enjoyment, 
friendship from every one, for one’s own benefit. In 
this manner do the men of the world know one another. 


But we Christians now have a different view of men;_ 


for we are new creatures in Christ, 2 Cor.5,17. We 
know each other according to the spirit, that is, each 
one seeks not his own benefit, but that which will 
be beneficial to others, to do them all the good in 
our power, as Paul says also in Rom. 14, and Phil. 2, 20. 


198 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


105. “And though we have known Christ after 
the flesh,’ says he, ‘ yet now henceforth know we him 
no more.” It is well here to understand, that he does 
not mean Christ personally in the flesh, as this Enthu- 
siast maintains; for Christ remains in the flesh through 
eternity, and therein all the angels must behold him for- 
ever. But we must know him as we know our brethren, 
spiritually, and no longer in the manner of flesh; and 
much less than of our brethren, must we have a fleshly 
perception of Christ. ‘ But heretofore,’ he wishes to 
say, “‘when we were holy in Judaism, and in the 
works of the law,—which the false prophets are now 
again enforcing,—we knew nothing spiritually of 
Christ, but whatever we sought was fleshly. For 
we trusted that he would redeem Israel, Luke 24, 
ol, regard our righteousness, and make us lords accord- 
ing to the flesh.” This would certainly be to know 
Christ according to the flesh,—a real fleshly perception. 
But all this 15 now passed away, and has died along with 
him. No longer do we know him thus. For this man- 
ner of knowing him is all gone, and we are now new 
creatures in Christ. This interpretation is furnished by 
Paul himself; only read and duly examine the text. 

106. Now all those who view and contemplate Christ 
in the grossness of sensation, must be offended at 
him, as was the case among the Jews. For because 
flesh and blood can extend their knowledge no far- 
ther than to what comes under the sight and feeling, 
and because they perceive that Christ was crucified as a 
mortal man, they must say, “ All is over,—there is 
neither life nor happiness,—he is gone,—he can help no 
one,—he is lost himself. But whoever would not be of- 
fended at him, must extend his view beyond the flesh, and 


-------..-..--  ο.«οὠὀἠ  - ἠΚ΄-νὀἶ:.-Ἐ-ὠς-ς--.--- ὕυ.0΄.- τ΄ OO ss oe ee ee eee re rl feo + 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 199 


be elevated through the influence of the word, so as to 
perceive in spirit, how Christ even by his suffering 
and death has become the Lord of life and glory. 
And whoever does this properly, whoever is able 
to do it, is a new creature in Christ, endowed with 
new spiritual perceptions. Precisely as all become of- 
fended at the Savior still, if they view the Eucharist in the 
fleshly grossness of sense, as the Enthusiasts do view it ; 
for they are the persons who recognise Christ according to 
the flesh, as they charge us with doing. The flesh, in- 
deed, can say and know no more, than ‘ here is bread and 
wine ;’’? consequently it must be offended at Christ, 
when he says, “This is my body,” for it is an old 
creature in Adam. Now should it not become of- 
fended, the flesh must be transcended, and the words, 
“This is my body,’ must be believed; thus it will 
be understood, that the bread is not mere bread, but the 
true body of Christ. 

107. It grieves me indeed, that Satan should thus 
abuse the word of God; but I am moved with compas- 
sion, however, that the poor people should not see that 
the Enthusiasts make these loose opinions the source of 
their presumption. They boast triumphantly that they 
have learned nothing from us, but they have no need of 
this; their writings show it plain enough, independent of 
their boasting, and we would be sorry that they should 
learn such doctrine from us. If this is the way in 
which they interpret the Scripture, and preach at Zurich, 
at Basel, and at Strasburg, and wherever they may 
preach, it were to be wished, that they still were the 
Pope’s adherents. For these adherents throughout the 
world are becoming fully convinced, that they are teach- 
ing wrong. The Lord our God! if these notorious errors 


{ 


200 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


and false interpretation of the writings of St. Paul cannot 
alarm people and stir them up against the Enthusiasts, 
what can stir them up? 

108. And still they introduce more passages, in 
which Christ is represented as having left the world, 
having gone to the Father, ascended into heaven, and 
sat down at the right hand of God. They deduce, how- 
ever, nothing from these, more than to teach us what we 
long since have known, in order that it may not be 
noticed in the meantime, how adroitly they leap over the 
point where they should furnish an answer. ut they 
ought to have taught and proved that on this account our 
interpretation is incorrect, and that these words of Christ, 
(Ὁ This is my body,” are false. They say it is a con- 
tradiction that the body of Christ can be in heaven and in 
the Eucharist, but they do not prove the contradiction. 
We, therefore, say on the contrary, that it is not a contra- 
diction, because the Scriptures make both assertions, and 
our JVo is as strong as their Yes ; for we cannot deny the 
clear, perspicuous words, merely on account of their na- 
ked, blunt affirmation. More than a thousand years has 
it been known, that Christ ascended into heaven, without 
the teaching of this modern genius ; nor has it been on 
this account vainly believed, that the body of Christ is 
present in the Eucharist, or that Christ’s word is true. 
If this Enthusiast really has any objection, he should rea- 
sonably show and teach it to us, but he will never do this. 

109. But, beloved friends, I will declare the truth to 
you, if this Enthusiast does mean in sincerity, and does 
not wilfully misrepresent, that our interpretation is op- 
posed to the Scripture, [ will consider all my reasonings 
lost. I will prove this as follows: First,—the Enthu- | 
siast has admitted above that Christ was present at the 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 201 


first Supper, giving his body to be eaten, where he sets 
apart the causative words, as we have heard already 
sufficiently. So now tell me, how can he with sincer- 
ity contend that the very thing is false and opposed to 
the Scripture, which he himself acknowledges above, as 
being correct, and as having once occurred? For were 
he disposed to act with sincerity, he would assail the first 
Supper from the Scriptures, and not understand words 
of causation; he does not act in this manner, however, 
but lets our interpretation have its force there. Now if 
our interpretation is true in the first administration of the 
Supper, there can be no figure or symbol in the words, but 
just as they there stand and read, so they mean ; and thus 
all the storm and uproar of these men in seeking a figure, 
is utterly vain. 

110. In the second place, no one can deny that 
Christ administered the first Supper while he was 
in the world, before he ascended to the Father. 
Therefore we ask, how can this Enthusiast say with sin- 
ceerity, ‘The passages which speak in reference to the 
ascension of Christ to the Father, are opposed to the text 
in the Eucharist?’? In this way he would have to ac- 
knowledge, that the same passages were not fulfilled, 
and that Christ has not ascended up into heaven. If 
Christ had instituted the Eucharist from heaven after his 
ascension, the Enthusiasts would then have great color 
efreason. But in reality Christ has acted as if he would 
say; ““ Enthusiasts will arise, who will pretend that my 
Supper is opposed-to passages of Scripture which speak 
in reference to me, that I have ascended unto the Fa- 


ther, and am no longer in the world. Therefore I will 


come beforehand, and institute my Supper, while I am 
still jn the world and upon earth, in order that they may 


202 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


be caught in their own words, before they are aware of 
it, as the authors of notorious falsehoods; and my 
beloved children may be strengthened in the true 
faith.” 

111. On what ground will they resist here? They 
must surrender all these passages, upon which they have 
been trusting so confidently, and acknowledge themselves 
to be notorious lars, that, because Christ was not in 
heaven, when he instituted the Supper, these passages 
have not moved them in real earnest to deny that the 
body of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but that 
they were betrayed by Satan,—they thought they saw 
what they did not see ;—for these passages afford them 
as little aid in determining whether the ‘body of Christ 
is present in the Eucharist or not, as these do where it 
is said, that Christ was born in Bethlehem, and fled 
into Egypt. 

112. I will, however, give them very good counsel. 
They must now begin to think of some other passage of 
Scripture; namely, of this: “In the evening Jesus sat 
at meat with the twelve,’’ and whatever more remains 
of the same passage, which speaks of their sitting at meat. 
From this passage they must deduce the following train 
of reasoning: “‘ The Scripture says that Christ sat at 
the table, therefore he could not be in the bread.’”’. If 
they only say this, it will be quite enough, and it is not 
necessary for them to prove to us, how it is opposed to 
the Scripture, as they have done with the preceding 
passages. For all that this Enthusiast says, is right, 
except the falsehoods which he tells. But we would 
reply: “ Too slow, dear Enthusiast, too slow; for this 
passage of Scripture concerning their sitting at meat, 
has never yet led you to your error; you have 


THE LORD’S SUPPER, 203 


indeed never thought of it, much less that it should have 
led you to this error. Now because this passage has 
never moved you, and the former passages were unable to 
move you, pray tell us then, what has moved you? 
Dear Enthusiast, if you will thus convict us of such no- 
torious falsehood, we shall retract. 

113. But they continue: “‘ Though the first Supper 
be not opposed to this passage of Scripture, which we 
have just now introduced, yet succeeding administrations 
of the Supper, after the ascension of Christ into heaven, 
are opposed to it.”? To this I reply, “I ask you no 
questions now in reference to succeeding administrations. 
It is sufficient for me that I have maintained the real 
presence in the first administration ; this cannot be op- 
posed to the passages of Scripture concerning the ascen- 
sion of Christ, and here the Enthusiast has entirely failed. 
For if I sustain this point, that the passages of Scripture 
concerning the ascension of Christ, can induce no 
one to deny the first administration of the Supper 
according to our sense, we shall be abundantly able to 
maintain the same interpretation in other administrations 
also. For who will believe the Enthusiasts, that the 
passages of Scripture in reference to the ascension of 
Christ, forcibly impel them in opposition to his presence 
in the Eucharist after his ascension, if they are forced to 
admit, that they are not impelled by the same passages 
in opposition to his presence in the Supper before the 
ascension? If the body of Christ can sit at table and 
still be in the bread, it can also be in heaven and wher- 
ever he wishes to be, and still be in the bread. It makes 
no difference as to his being far from or near the table, in 
order to be in the bread. Well, here they have been 
openly discovered as guilty of falsehood; yet they will 


vt 


204 THE LORD’S SUPPER, 


not yield, or acknowledge their error, so as to honor the 
truth in obedience to God. 

114. Let this be sufficient to show that our inter- 
pretation is not opposed to the Scripture or to the Creed, 
as this insolent Enthusiast deludes himself in believing. 
After this he comes to the two principal points or divi- 
sions, upon which I have the most earnestly insisted, 
namely, That Christ is at the right hand of God; 
and, That the flesh profits nothing, where he is to prove 
that these two propositions cannot allow that the body 
of Christ is present in the Eucharist as I had indicated 
by large written characters, in order that they might not 
pass it over unnoticed. So this dear mystic comes and 
introduces his figure of .4lodsis, by which he would 
make every thing plain, and he teaches us, that in 
the Scripture one nature in Christ is taken for the 
other, until he falls into the abyss, and concludes 
that this expression, The word was made flesh, John 1, 
14, must not be understood as it reads, but thus: The 
flesh was made the word, or, man has become God. 
In this way must the Scripture be perverted. 

115. 1 cannot at this time examine all the errors of 
this Enthusiast. But I say this,—whoever will suffer 
himself to be counselled, let him beware of this man 
ZAwinglias, and shun his book as the poison of the Princ 
of devils; for he is entirely perverted, and has en- 
tirely lost sight of Christ. Other Sacramentarians re+ 
main fixed in one error, but this Enthusiast never issues 
a book, without pouring out new errors, increasing in 
number with the advance of time. But if any one will 
not suffer himself to be admonished, let him at least go so 
far as to know, that I have warned him, and am blame- 
less. 


‘ 


THE LORD’S SUPPER» 205 


116. You must not believe or admit the assertion, 
that the figure .4//06s7s is to be found in these expressions, 
or that one nature in, Christ is taken for the other. The 
unreasonable Enthusiast makes this conclusion, in order 
to rob us of Christ, for he does not prove it, nor can he 
prove it to you. And indeed were this conclusion of his 
true and correct, it still would not prove that the body 
of Christ cannot be present in the Eucharist. For in 
reference to this very point, I have reduced them to the 
necessity of proving or showing a reason why these 
words, ‘* This is my body,”’ are false, just as they read, 
although Christ is in heaven; because the power of Gad 
is Galton to us, and he can bring it about in some way, 
that both can be true,—namely, Christ in heaven, and 
his body in the Eucharist. This was the specific ques- 
tion which I proposed when I wrote down in large char- 
acters, that they ought to show how the two propositions 
can be opposed to each other. Still he kept silent on 
this point, never noticing one letter of the question, as if 


it did not concern him, but kept running on, muttering all | 


the time about his Alledszs. 


117. For I showed that the body of Christ is every 
where, because the right hand of God is every where ; 
[did this, (a Aine which 1 had publicly engaged to 


) because I could at a: ast show one way in which God 


Fras able to bring it about, that Christ might be in hea- 


ven, and his body at the same time In the Eucharist ; 
and in view of his divine wisdom and power, he knows 
far more how to do this, because we do not know any 
limit or measure to his power. 


118. Now if they had been desirous or able to an- 


swer, they should have proved to us incostestibly, that 


y 


ν᾿ 


3 


the 


206 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 

God knows no method, nor is he able, to cause Christ 
to be in heaven, and his body at the same time in the 
Hucharist. Here lies the difficulty, over which these 
good Enthusiasts leap. For they have no need of teach- 
ing us the visible fact, that heaven is far above beyond 
our sight, and the Eucharist here below upon earth. 
We know perfectly well ourselves, that to judge accord- 
ing to our sight, that which is below cannot be above, and 
the contrary ; for this is a visible, natural state or condi- 
tion. But+thewordand-operatrve-power of God proceed 
not within the limit of our vision, but far transcend all the 
powers of comprehension, yes, even the power of angels. 
Thus Christ is neither in heaven nor in the Eucharist ina 
visible state, and as human eyes judge a thing to be here 
or there. 

119; This is assuredly a powerless reasoner who 
limitS the word and operation of God, to the range of 
nortal eyes. For in this way God himself is not where 
hé is; let him be at all places, or at some places. Be- 
loved, why then does this Enthusiast stick to the one 
specific state which I pointed out? In the first place, 
because he experiences great uneasiness,—his bowels 


wil burst from his immense weight of science. In the 


second place, he acts thus in order to delude the simple, 
so that they may not discérn in the mean time, how he 
leaps over questions which he ought to answer, and ap- 
plies himself to a different game, in order to draw us from 
the path, and make us forget the arguments which grieve 
him. Now if I were contending with them about this 
visible state to which I have alluded, they would win the 
game. Why? Because they would then have reason 
or a plausible excuse not to answer the right proposi- 
tions which oppress them; and still they would write 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 207 


one book after another, merely to circulate their useless 
gossip in the world. For they consider a vast deal of 
chatter and writing of useless books, a sufficient answer, 
sufficient to betray the poor people. 

120. Accordingly you should also act in this way to 
guard yourself against them: if they prove to you sub- 
stantially, that the power and wisdom of God are no 
broader than the range of our sight, and that he is able to 
do no more than we ean see and judge of with our eyes, or 
touch with our fingers, then you should also believe with 
them; even I will believe, that God knows of no other 
method by which Christ can be in heaven, and his body at 
the same time in the Eucharist. This you must require, 
you must demand from them. ‘This they are bound to 
perform; and their doctrine can never stand, until they 
have rendered this clear and evident : then their doctrine 
can rest upon it. 

121. The wicked Enthusiast feels very sensibly that 
he is not able to do this, and for this reason he bustles 
about as he does with useless garrulity, in order that we 
may not draw him to the point; while in the mean time 
he mutters a kind of verbiage which nobody requires. 
For though he had controverted the state to which | 
had alluded—a thing which he could not accom- 
plish—he would have achieved no great advantage 
notwithstanding ; because he would not even then have 
proved that the two assertions are opposed to each 
other,—Christ is in heaven, and his body in the 
bread. He must prove that this mode of existence is not 
only impossible, but that God himself is ignorant of any 
other mode, and unable to provide any, as in my former. 
book I have proposed. Inasmuch as he has not done 
this, we now declare, that Ged is omnipotent ; he is able. 


205 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


to accomplish infinitely more than we can see ; and hence 
ΤΕ believe his words as they read. Behold, to what ex- 
tremity our mystic is reduced, and how he has brought 
himself into disgrace in spite of his logic! 

122. For to all the vain raillery which he utters 
against the mode of existence demonstrated by me, I re- 
ply by one little word, which is 9. For he introduces 
his Allcéses, which no one will allow him in this article ; 
and it is just as necessary for him to prove these figures, 
as to prove his whole system of falsehoods. | But if he 
proves them, he can still further be answered. Thus 
stands my demonstration, in view of his AJdoéses, still 
invulnerable altogether; for though he says it is an ex- 
ample of Allcésis, no one cares aught about it; he might 
just as well say it was a figure of irony, or any other 
fioure. ‘There is no advantage gained in making figures 
with so much facility in the Scripture ; the figure should 
first be proved, it should be proved that it is in that par- 
ticular passage, before one should assume it in a contro- 
versy. Ah! it is just as I have already said; the devil 
is mortified because he is not able to answer, and there- 
fore he hurries about in this way, with a useless multi- 
plicity of words. Praise and thanks be to God, who 
knows so well how to defend us against this devil. 

123. But you should, beloved brother, instead of 
these .Allcéses, maintain this position: ““ Because Jesus 
Christ is in reality God and man united in one person, 
in no passage of the Scripture is one nature taken for the 
other ;—for he calls it an Allcés7s, if something is said 
concerning the Godhead of Christ, which belongs to his 
humanity, or vice versa, asin Luke 24, 26, ‘“ Ought not 
Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his 
glory?” Here he prates, that Christ is taken for his h 


¢ + 

‘4 

the 
a 

+ v, 


ἊΨ 3 + 
tye © ak 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 209 


man nature. Guard yourself, guard yourself, say I, 
from these Alloéses. ‘They are the mask of Satan. For 
they ultimately form a Christ, according to whom I 
would not willingly be a Christian, namely, that Christ 
henceforth can be no more, nor can he do more by his 
suffering and death, than a mere saint. For if I beheve 
that the human nature only suffered for me, Christ is to 
me an insignificant savior, who stands as much in need 
of a savior himself. In a word, it is not possible to tell 
what this evil one is seeking with his Zlo6ses. 

124. And indeed this constitutes a more important 
article, and abundantly merits a particular treatise, 
nor does it belong to this subject. In short, how- 
ever, let an unscrupulous Christian be satished, that 
the Holy Ghost well understands how to teach us 
the manner in which we should speak, and we need no 
manufacturer of tropesand figures. But the Holy Ghost 
speaks as follows, John 3, 16, ‘“‘God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only-begotten Son;” Rom. 8, 92, 
«He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us 
41}. And in the same way, all the operations, the words, 
the sufferings, and whatever Christ does, he acts, he 
speaks, he works, he suffers, as the true Son of God, and it 
is correctly said, ‘“* The Son of God has died for us; the 
Son of God preached upon earth; the Son of God washed 
the feet of the disciples,”’ as the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
6,6, declares: ‘* They crucify to themselves the Son of 


God.” 1 Cor. 2, 8, “‘ Had they known it, they would a 


not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 

125. Now although the old sorceress, the lady Rea- 
son, the grandmother of @//c637s, would say, ‘‘ Yes, the 
Godhead cannot suffer and die;’’ you should answer, 


‘This is true; but the Godhead and the humanity iz 


» 
im "νὰ 
a Ἢ νὴ 

ee es ae 
ge Ὁ" te 
ot 


210 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Christ ἃ are e united j in one person; and hence'the Scriptures, 
in consequence of this personal union, attribute tothe God- 
head also, whatever they attribute to the humanity, and 
vice versa.” And inreality itisso. For in truth you 
must argue in this way: “ The person (meaning Christ) 
suffers, dies. Now the person in realityis God. -Hence 
it is correctly said, that the Son of Ged ‘suffers. For 
although the one part, so to speak, the Godhead, does 
not suffer, yet the person, however, which 15 God, does 
suffer, in the other part, the humanity.” 

126. Just as we say, “The ‘son -of ‘the king 15 
wounded,” though his leg only is wounded ; “Solomonis 
wise,’ though only his soul is wise 5 *¢ Absalom 4s beauti~ 
ful,” though his body alone is:beautiful; ** Peter is gray,” 
though his head only is gray. For, because the body 
‘and the soul constitute one person, to the whole person 
is justly attributed every thing which the soul or 
the body, even the smallest limb of the body, experi- 
ences. ‘This is the manner in which men speak 
throughout the world, not only in the Seripture; and 
‘it is-evidently the truth. For in truth the Son of God 
was crucified for us; that is, the person, which is God, 
for it is the person, I say, which is crucified according 
ito the humanity. 

127. ‘Thus we should attribute to the whole person, 
whatever belongs to one part of the person, because both 
parts constitute one person. So all the ancient teachers 
declare, all the modern theologians, and languages, and 
the whole Scripture. But this execrable Alloésts in- 
verts the whole of the doctrine, and confines to one na- 
ture what the Scriptures assign to the whole person; it 
makes a peculiar figure which perverts the Scriptures,and _ 
divides the person of Christ, as this Enthusiast has done 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. P11 


also with the word zs, merely that he may ‘in his mod- 
ern opinions, and his foolish τὰ; ns upon the 
Son also. 
| 128. And if he is so fond of figures, ε" does he not 
adhere to the old figure, which the Scripture and all the 
ancient Fathers up to this time have employed? namely, 
the Synecdoche; as, Christ died according to his hu- 
manity, &c.; but there would be nothing new in this, 
| - no applause could be gained by it, and there would be 
: no new errors to introduce in this way. Hence he must 
| produce his 4//o6sts, and teach us that one nature 15 ta- 
| ken forthe other. Asif the Apostles were so ignorant or 
| insane, that they could not speak of the divinity, without 
alluding to the humanity of Christ, and vice versa. Had 
| John wished to observe an /i//o6szs, he might well have 
said, “* The flesh was made the Word,’’ when ἢ6 5618, 
| “The Word was made flesh.”’ 
129. Is not this a presumptuous mystic, who thus 
~ works out of this so mach audacity, and makes an A- 
losis for us in these passages? Who has commanded 
him to do this? By what reasoning can he prove that - 
there is an /llodsis here? No, this is not necessary ; 
but it is sufficient for him merely to declare, “1, Zwin- 
elius, say that there is an loésts here; therefore it is 
| so. Hor I was yesterday in the dome of the Godhead, 
| I come immediately from heaven, and therefore I must 
| ‘be believed.”” He ought to prove beforehand that there 
is an /l/o6sis in the passage ; this he neglects to do, and 
| assumes it, as if he had established it a thousand years 
| before, and there were no man who could entertain a 
doubt that there is an Al/oésts in the passage ; a circum- 
εῷ: stance more in need of proof than that which he wishes to 
establish. From the logic of Zwinglius this may be said 


212 _ ΤῊΝ LORD’S SUPPER. 


to be the science which proves an uncertainty by that 
which is more uncertain; a thing unknown, by that which 
is more unknown. Oh! beautiful science! The chil- 
dren ought to deface it with mud. 

130. If this is profitable, to sport his tropes and 
figures through his own perversity, and if he must still 
be right in what he says, what wonder would there be, 
if he should ultimately convert Christ into Belial. Who- 
ever dares to say whatever pleases him, and is not bound 
to show his reasons, beloved, what conclusion should he 
not arrive at? ‘This is nothing else but what I have 
been complaining of. This genius extols the Scriptures 
in order to smear the mouth of the people, producing, 
however, merely his own dreams and mad presumptions 
against the Scriptures. But we condemn and execrate 
the assumption of an .7//o6s7s in this passage, even to the 
darkness of despair, as the offspring of Satan himself; 
and we shall see how he will establish it; for we desire 
Scripture and reason, and not his own filth and foam. 

131. They exclaim against us, that we confound the 
two natures in one essence. ‘Thisis not true. We say 
not that the Divinity is the Humanity, or that the divine 
nature is the human nature, which would be confusing 
the two natures in one essence. But we unite the two 
distinct natures in one person, and say, *‘ God is man, 
and man is God.’ On the other hand, we exclaim 
against them, because they divide the person of Christ, 
as if there were two yersons. For if this Allcésis 
can be sustained, as Zwinglius corven's, ¢ hrist must 
necessarily be two persons, a divine and a human 
person ; because he applies the passages concerning the 
suffering of Christ, to the human nature only, and turns 
every thing from the divine. For, whenever the opera- 


πω... 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 913 


tions are divided and separated, the person will also be 
divided, because all the operations or sufferings must: be 
attributed to the person and not to the natures. For it 
is the person which performs and which suffers all,—one 
thing according to this nature, another thing according to 
thatnature,as allthelearned well know. Accordingly we 
hold our Lord Jesus Christ as God and man in one per- 
son, not confounding the natures nor dividing the person. 

152. Let this suffice on these incidental points; 
for they serve no useful purpose here, except because 
this mystic is so full of errors, that he seeks occasions 
on every hand, to confuse the illiterate, and to thrust 
the proper subject out of its place. We stand here 
secure, because this Joquacious mystic is neither able 
nor willing to prove that the two propositions, Christ 
is tn heaven, and his body is in the Eucharist, are 
opposed to each other. So too the words, ‘ This is my 
body,’? must remain to us as they read; for one letter 
among them is better, and better known to us, than all 
the books of the Enthusiasts, though they should write 
the world full of books. | 

133. And again because they have not proved that 
the right hand of God is at a particular place in heaven, 
my demonstration must still remain secure, which asserts 
that the body of Christ is ev ery where, because it is at 
the right right ἢ hand of God, which is every where; although 
we cannot τὶ ee how this occurs; for we cannot 
understand also how it occurs, that the right hand of 
God is every where. It is certainly not in the mode in 
which we see an object at any place, as the Enthusi- 
asts view the Eucharist; but doubtless God has a mode, 
that he can be and is every where, until the Enthusiasts 
prove the contrary, 


ee eee ae mC 


214 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


134. For though the figure of Allodsis could be 
supported, assuming one nature for the other, this would 
relate only to the operations or actions of the natures, 
and not to the essence of the natures. For although 
among these operations, if we should say, ‘ Christ 
preaches, drinks, prays, dies,’? Christ might be taken 
for the human nature; it could not, however, be thus in 
import, if we should say, ““ God is man,” or, “ Manis 
God.’? Here indeed there can be no A/loésis, or Synec- 
doche, or any figure; for God must be taken for God, 
man for man. Now when 1 say the body of Christ is 
every where, I speak not of the operations of the na- 
tures, but of the essence of the natures; hence no /- 
lodsts or Synecdoche can overthrow this for me. For 
essence Is essence, each one for itself, no one for the 
other ; and whoever wishes to controvert me, he must not 
produce an Alloésis, a Synecdoche, or figure; they can 
do nothing here; but he must assail the ground of my 
reasoning, upon which 1 support myself in the argument. 

135. But my grounds, upon which I support myself 
in this argument, are these: the first is the following ar- 
ticle of our faith,—*‘ Jesus Christ is essential, natural, 
true, and perfect God and man, in one person un- 
separated and undivided.”* The other is,— That the 
right hand of God is every where.” The third is, that 
** The word of God is neither false nor deceptive.” The 
fourth is, that ‘‘ God knows and has within his power va- 
rious ways, in which he can at any time be present in a 
place, and not in the one only, about which the Enthu- 
slasts trifle, and which the philosophers call Jocal.’’ 
For the sophists speak correctly here, when they say, 
there are three modes of being ina place, docal or circum- 
scribed, uncircumscribed, replete or full. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 215 


136. In the first place, it is a distinct thing to be m 
one place circumscribed or local, that is, if the space 
and the body correspond with, fit, and measure the same 
capacity, as wine or water in a cask, where the wine 
occupies and the cask affords only the space required. 
Thus a piece of wood or a beam in the water takes no more 
room, and the water gives no more, than the magnitude of 
the beam which is in it. Thus too when a man moving 
in the air, occupies no greater space of the air, 
nor does the air afford any more, than the size of the 
man. In this way, space and body measure each 
other alike from boundary to boundary. In this way, the 
pewterer pours off, moulds, and measures the tankard 
in its form. ve 

137. In the second place, it is a different thing to 
be in one place, wneircumscribed, if the object or 
the body is not circumscribed in.one place, and limited 
according to the dimensions o the place in which it is, 
but can occupy some more room, or some less room. 
Thus they say the angels and spirits occupy spaces or 
localities; for in this way, an angel or a devil can be in 
a whole house or town; then again he can be in a room, 
in a box or a chest, indeed in a nutshell. The place is 
really material, and circumscribed, and has its own di- 
mensions of length, breadth, and thickness; but that 
which is in it, has not an equal length, breadth, or thick- 
ness with the space in which it is situated, indeed it may 
have really no length or breadth. Thus we read in the 
Gospel, that the. devil possesses men and enters into 
them, and goes also into the swine. In Mark 5, it is 
said that a whole legion had possessed one man, which 
were about six thousand devils. ‘This I take to be un- 
circumscribed in a place; for we cannot comprehend or 


ω 


216 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
SU 


measure it, as we measure a body, and yet it is notwith- 
standing in the place. 

138. This is the mode in which the crucified body of 
Christ existed, when he came out of the closed grave, 
and to the disciples through a closed door, as the Gospel 
shows. For there was here no measure or circumscrip- 
tion, in what particular point his head or feet were, when 
he came through the stone, and yet he must have passed 
through. Ie occupied no room, and the stone gave him 
no room, but the stone remained a stone, entiré and Se- 
cure as before, and his body remained as Jarge and full 
as it was before. He could even then, as he wished, 
suffer himself to be seen circumscribed in a place, where 
he occupies a portion of space, and lets himself be limited 
according to magnitude. Even in the former way is 
Christ able to be, and he is, in the bread, although he is 
able, as he was then, to show himself circumscribed and 
visible wherever he wishes. or as the sealed stone and 
the closed door remained unchanged and unmoved, and 
although his body was at the same time in that place, 
where there were merely stone and wood; so he is in 
the same manner in the Fucharist, where the bread and 
wine are, though the bread and wine remain in their own 
place unmoved and unchanged. 

139: In the third place, it is a distinct consideration 
for an object to be located in a replete supernatural 
manner, that 1s, if something at the same time exists in 
all places whole and entire, and fills all places, and yet 
is measured or limited by no place, according to the area 
of the space in which it exists. This mode of existence 
belongs to God only, as he says in the prophet Jeremiah 
23, 23, “Am 1a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not 


a God afar off? Do not I fill heaven and earth saith 


+ 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 217 


the Lord?” This is a mode of existence beyond all 
measurement, immense beyond our comprehension, and 
it must be maintained only by the power of faith in the 
word. 

140. All this I have related, in order that it may be 
understood, that there are more ways indeed for an cb 
ject to exist anywhere, than the one circumscribed, phy- 
sical mode upon which the Enthusiasts insist; and the 
Scriptures furnish invincible proof, that the body of Christ 
must exist in a place not in a mode merely circumscribed 
and physical, in which he makes and takes up room 
in proportion to his magnitude. For superior to 
this limited mode of existence, he existed in the stone 
of his grave, in like manner in the closed door, which 
they cannot deny. If he was able to exist in this way, 
without the necessity of room and space measured by 
his magnitude, beloved, why can he not also exist 
in the bread, independent of room and space measured 
by his magnitude? But if he can exist in this unlimited 
manner, he can also exist independent of the physical parts 
of his creation, nor is he confined there nor limited by their 
dimensions. But who can comprehend how this occurs? 
Who can prove that it is false, if any one should say 


_and maintain, that, because he is external to the creation, 


he 15 certainly wherever he wishes to be, so that ali the 
creation is a8 pervious and present te him, as its physica! 
state or location is to any other body? 

141. Let us consider our phy sical eyes and power of 
vision. If we open our eyes, our sight, in the twinkling 
of an eye, is five or six miles away, all around too m 
every place within the range of these six miles ; and this 


is still only t sight, only is power of aneye. If the 
physical sight can dosthis, do you not stpp se that nied 
49 


218 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


in his power can discover a mode by which the body of 
Christ can be present with and pervading all creatures ? 
“Yes,” say you, “ but by this you do not prove that it 
is so.”’ Thank you, I prove so much by it, that the 
“nthusiasts cannot overthrow my argument, nor prove 
that this divine power is impossible, which they ought 
to prove, however, and which they must prove. They 
ought to prove, Ff say, that God knows no method by 
which the body of Christ can exist in any other form, 
than a physical, limited form. If they do not prove this, 
their system of belief must subsist in infamy ; and I know 
they can never prove it. 


142. But because we prove from the Scripture that 


the body of Christ can exist in more ways, than in this 
physical form, we have therefore sufficiently shown, that 
we ought to believe the words, ‘This is my body,”’ as 
they read; because it is contrary to no article of the 
Creed to believe them in this way; and the Scriptures 
give their sanction to it, in declaring that the body of 
Christ passed through the sealed stone and the closed 
coor. For, since we can show-a method, besides thé 
physical, circumscribed method, who will assume the 
audacity to measure and span the power of God, as if He 
knew no other way? And the position of these Enthu- 
siasts-cannot be sustained, unless they prove that the 
power of God is to be thus limited and confined, as their 
only ground of argument is, that the body of Christ can 
exist in one place only in a physical, circumscribed form. 
But it is of no advantage for them to attempt an answer 
here; they leap over, and in the mean time discourse about 
madam J2llo6sts. : 
143. And to come now to the grounds of my argu- 


ment, because our faith maintains that Christ 1s both 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 213 


God and man, and the two natures constitute one person, 
so that they cannot be divided from each other, doubtless 


Christ can exhibit himself according to a physical, circurn- ..» 


scribed mode, in whatever locality he pleases, as he did 
after his resurrection, and will do on the last day. But 
besides this mode, he can employ another uncircumscribed 
mode of exhibition, as we have proved from the Scripture 
that he did at the grave and the closed door. 

{44. But now such a man is one, who is superna- 
turally one person with God, and externally to this man 
there is no God; it must follow, therefore, that he is and 
is able to exist, according to a third supernatural mode, 
throughout immensity wherever God is, and every thing 
is full through and through of Christ, even according to 
his humanity ; not according to the first, physical mode, 
but according to a supernatural, divine mode. For here 
you must take your stand and declare: ‘‘ Wherever 
Christ is according to his divinity, there he is a person 
naturally divine, and he jis naturally and personally 
there, as his reseption into the womb of his mother 
abundantly proves. For if he were to be the Son οἵ 
God, he had to be naturally and personally in his mother’s 
womb, and become man. Now if he exists naturally 
and personally wherever he exists, he must be there also 
as man. For there are not two divided, but a single 
undivided person. Wherever it exists, there it exists 
a single, undivided person. And wherever you can 
say, ‘‘ Here is God,”’ you must say, ‘The man Christ 
is here also.” 

145. And wherever you will show a place where God 
would exist and not the human nature, the person would 
already be divided; because then I could declare with 
truth; ‘‘ Here is God who is not man, and never was. 


220 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


man.” But never may there be such a God for me! 
γον it would follow from this, that room and space would 
divide the two natures from each other, and separate the 
person, though death and all the devils were unable to 
divide and separate them from each other. And an in- 
significant Christ would he be to me, who would not be 
able to exist at the same time asa divine and human per- 
son, at more than one particular place, but at all other 
places would have to be only a mere isolated God and 
divine person, without his humanity. No, my friend, 
whenever you present God to me, you must also pre- 
sent the humanity to me with him; they do not allow 
themselves to be separated from each other. They have 
become one person, and he does not cast his humanity 
from him, as my lord John takes off his coat and lays it 
from him, when he retires to sleep. 

146. For, to present a rude image for the sake of 
the illiterate: the humanity is more intimately united 
with God, than our skin with our flesh; yes, nearer 
than body and soul. Now so long as a man lives, 
and continues in health, his skin and flesh, his body 
and soul constitute so entirely one thing, one person, that 
they cannot be separated ; but wherever the soul is, there 
the body must be also; wherever the flesh is, there the 
skin must also be; and you cannot assign different situ- 
ations or places, where only the soul exists without the 
body, as a kernel without the shell, or where the flesh 
is without the skin, as the seed without the husk; but 
wherever the one is, there the other must be also. Nor 
can you extract the divinity from the humanity, and 
place it some distance away, and the humanity not be 
there too. For in this way, you would divide the per- 
son, and render the humanity a mere husk, yea, a mere 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 221 
cloak, which the divinity puts on and off, according as 
the space and room may be, and here the physical space 
would be able to divide the divine person, which how- 
eyer neither angel nor any creature is able to divide. 

147. Here you will exclaim with Nicodemus, John 
3, 9: “ How can these things be?’ Now, must all 
space and capacity become one capacity and space, or,— 
as this spirit of ignorance dreams, according to his gross, 
fleshly pescephions must the humanity of Christ stretch 
itself out and expand like a skin, as wide as the whole 
creation? Ireply: ‘‘ You must with Moses take off the 
old shoes, and with Nicodemus be born again. Accord- 
ing to your old obtundity, which cannot. perceive more 
than the first, physical, circumscribed mode, you cannot 
understand this; just ike the Enthusiasts, who can form 
no other conception, than that the Godhead exists every 
where in a physical, circumscribed mode ; as if God were 
a vast extended mass, which reaches through and beyond 
the creation. This you can perceive from the fact that 
they charge us with expanding and stretching out the hu- 
manity, and thereby contracting the divinity,—words or 
terms which obviously apply to the physical, circumscribed 
mode of being, reasant in his waistceat and small 
clothes, when the waistcoatand small clothesare stretched 
out, in order to surround the body and legs of the peasant. 

148. Elevate yourself, you gross Enthusiast, from 
these low conceptions. If you can hear nor think no- 
thing else here, go stay behind the stove, and in the mean 
time roast pears and apples, but let these subjects be at 
rest. Christ went, however, through the closed door 
with his body, and the door was not on that account ex- 
tended, nor his body compressed ; how then should the 
humanity be here expanded, and the divinity contracted, 


te 


222 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


- 


where there is a far different and more exdited mode of 
operation ? a ᾿ 
149. “This is ἃ deep subject,’ say you, ‘and 
It do not understand 11. Yes indeed, of this I too 
complain, that these gross spirits, who can scarcely 


‘creep upon the earth, inexperienced in faith, uninitiated 


in spiritual matters, wish to fly up aloft beyond the sky, 
and attempt to measure and determine these holy, sub- 
lime, unlimited objects, not according to the word of God, 
but according to their own grovelling, earthly concep- 
tions. So, it happens with them, as the poets relate 
concerning Icarus. For they have stolen an unaccus- 
tomed wing,—that is, the language of Scripture,—and 
they have attached it with wax,—that is, with the pow- 
ers of their own perceptions,—and thus equipped, they 
fly up on high. But the wax melts, they fall into the 


sea, and are drowned in all the waves of error. 


150. Christ says, “If 1 have told you of earthly 
things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, -if 


I tell you of heavenly things?’ Behold, this is entirely 


an earthly, physical thing, for the body of Christ to go 
through the stone and the door. For his body is mate- 
rial, an object which can be laid hold of, as much so as 
the stone and the door; still no understanding can con- 
ceive how his body and the stone can occupy the same 
point of space at the same time ; how he can pass through, 
and still the stone become no larger, expand no wider, 
nor the body of Christ be compressed nor become any 
‘smaller. Faith here must blend with the rational pow- 
ers, and elevate them from this physical, limited mode of 
conception, into a different, an unlimited mode, which 
they do not understand, and still cannot deny. | 
151. Now if this other mode must be understood by 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 293 


ΓΝ 


faith, and the powers of reason with its limited con- 
ceptions must submit, how much more must the power 
of faith stand here alone, and the understanding bow 
under the consideration of that divine, supernatural mode, 
in which the body of Christ in his divinity constitutes 
one person with God? For any one will grant this to 
me, that it isa far different, and a loftier difficulty for 
the body of Christ to exist in the sealed stone and the 
closed door, than according to the first mode, for it to 
exist in its own garments, or in the air which moves, or 
rests, or stands around. For the air and the garments 
expand and widen according to the size of his limbs, as_ 
the eyes can behold and the hands can fee]. But in the 
stone and the door there is no enlargement. 

152. And further; every man must grant this also 
to us, that it is a far more exalted mode of being, for the 
body of Christ to be one person with God, than for it to 
exist ina stone or a door; for God is no material object, 
but a Spirit above all material things. And Christ isnot 
one person with the stone or the door, as he is with God ; 
accordingly he must exist more profoundly in the divin- 
ity than in the stone or the door, just as he existed more 
profoundly in the stone and the door, than in his gar- 
ment or the air. And thus the stone or the door had no 
necessity of expanding or widening, nor the body of 
Christ of contracting ; much less here in this most ex- 
alted mode, has the humanity any necessity to widen and 
expand, or the divinity to diminish or contract, as this 
gross Enthusiast imagines. 

153. For our mystic must pause and acknowledge to 
me, that the body of Christ enjoys a mode of being far 
more exalted and supernatural, in which he is one person 


with God, than he did when he passed through the sealed 


224 THE LORD'S 5 SUPPE ER. 


v 
+, 


stone and the door, ee ὅδ᾽ eee be a 
more exalted mode of existence, than for a man to 
be one person with God. For that second mode, in 
which the body of Christ existed in the stone, will be 
common to all the saints in heaven; they will be able to 
pass with their bodies through all the objects of nature, 
a property which 15 common even now to angels and 
devils. For the angel came to Peter in prison, Acts 12, 
7. And then he must acknowledge also to me, that the 
stone was not enlarged, nor the body of Christ contracted. 
154. Why then does this mystic idly talk about that 
most exalted mode of being, by which Christ is one per- 
son with God; contending that the humanity must ex- 
pand, and that God must contract, if it would be omni- 
present with God? ‘To no purpose but to show his own 
gross, fleshly, limited conceptions; to show that he 
has no other ideas of God and of Christ, than what ac- 
cords with the first material, limited mode of being. Be- 
loved, the humanity can be in one place or in all places, 
yet the divinity is not contracted; much less than 
the stone, which was in one place, contracted his 
body; but it is one person with God, so that wherever 
God is, there also is the man; whatever God performs, 
the man also is said to perform; whatever the man sui- 
fers, the God also is said to suffer. 
155. Thus, the body of Christ has a threefold mode 
or all the three modes in which to exist. First, the 
physical, circumscribed mode, as he walked physically 
upon the earth, when he occupied and made room 
according to his magnitude. ‘This mode he can still em- 
ploy whenever he desires, as he did after his resurrec- 
tion, and as he will do at the last day, as Paul says, 1 
Tim. 6, 15, ‘* Which in his times he shall show,” and 


THE are SUPPER. 295 


Col: 3) 4, « <When Christ who is our life shall appear.”* 
According to this mode he does not exist in God, or with 
the Father, nor in heaven, as this frenzied mystic imag- 
ines. For God is not a physical capacity orstate. And 
to this point those passages relate, which the mystics 
introduce, of Christ’s leaving the world, and going to 
the Father. 

156. In the second place, the uncircumscribed, spir- 
itual mode, in which he takes up and makes no room, but 
pervades all creation, wherever he wishes; as my 
sizht,—to offer a gross similitude,—passes through and _ 
exists in the air, the light, or the water, and neither takes 
up nor makes room; asa sound or a musical tone passes 
through and exists in the air and the water, or the board 
and the wall, and neither takes up nor makes room ; so 
too the liyht and heat pass through and exist in the air, 
water, lass, crystal, and the like, and neither make nor 
take up room, with many things of the kind. _ This mode 
he employed when he passed out of the closed grave, 
and came through the closed door ; and in this mode he 
enters the bread and wine in the Eucharist; and in this 
rode, as it is to be believed, he was born from his mother. 

157. In the third place, the divine, heavenly mode, 
in which he exists with God as one person, according to 
which he must doubtless pervade and be more intimately 
present to all the creation, than he is according to the 
second mode; for if he is able, according to this second 
mode, thus to exist in, and be present with the creation, 
that the objects of nature can neither feel, affect, measure, 
nor embrace him; how much more wonderfully, according — 
to this third shbiliené mode, will he exist in all the works © 
of nature, so that they cannot measure nor embrace _ 
him, but on the contrary he keeps them in Ais 


226 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


presence, measures and embraces them? For you 
must place this essence of Christ, which constitutes 
him one person with God, far, far, beyond the works 
of nature, far indeed as God is beyond them. On 
the other hand, you must place it as deep in and inti- 
mately near to these objects, as God himself exists ; for 
it is one undivided person with God. Wherever God 
is, there it must also be, or our faith is false. 

158. But who will tell or conceive how this comes 
_to pass? We know well that it is so; that he exists in 
God beyond the creation, and that he is one person with 
God ; but how it takes place, we know not; it is beyond 
our nature and understanding ; no angel even in heaven 
knows and understands it; God only knows it and un- 
derstands it. Because then it is unknown to us, and still 
true, we should not deny his word, before we know how 
to prove with certainty, that the body of Christ cannot 
exist in all things, wherever God is; and that this mode 
of being is false,—a falsehood which the Enthusiasts 
must prove, or yield the argument. 

159. That God knows and possesses still other modes, 
by which the body of Christ can be in any thing, I will 
not here deny, but I have shown what gross blockheads 
our Enthusiasts are, because they assign to the body of 
Christ but the first physical mode. Though they can- 
not prove even this,—that it 1s opposed to our interpre- 
tation; for by no means will I deny, that the power of 
God should be represented so great, that he can cause 
a body to be in numerous places at the same time, in a 
physical, circumscribed sense. For who will prove, that 
God is not able to do this? Who has seen his power at 
the utmost? The Enthusiasts may imagine readily 
enough, that God is not able, but who will believe their 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 297 


mysticism ἢ By what reasonings will they demonstrate 
their mysticism ? a 

160. If it is profitable to fancy, and if that is quite 
sufficient, I will fancy too, better than they, and declare 
as follows: “Ifthe body of Christ peradventure be at a 
certain point in heaven—as they talk—then all the crea* 
tion may be before him and around him even there, as 
the pure, transparent air. For as it is said, a spirit can 
see, pass, and hear through an iron wall, as clearly and 
distinctly as I can see or hear through the air or through 
glass; and that which to our sight is thick or dark, like 
wood, stone, or metal, is to a spirit like glass, yes, like the 
pure air, as is well established by apparitions and angels, 
and as Christ also has proved in passing through the 
sealed stone and the closed door. 

161. Now I have frequently seen a crystal or a 
jewel, within which was a little spark or lustre, or a hit- 
tle cloud or drop, as in the opal ; and this little cloud or 
drop would shine, as if it were at every side of the stone: 
for if the stone is turned around, we can see the drop as 
if it were within the stone in front, though it still re- 
mains in the centre of the stone. I am not speaking 
now from the Scripture. It seems necessary to specu- 
late, or we must let the Enthusiasts prevail. Now if 
Christ also were placed in the centre of the universe, 
even at one spot, like the little drop or spark in the 
crystal, and there were one class of objects placed be- 
fore me, as the bread and wine are placed before me by 
the word, even as a single point of the crystal is placed 
before my eyes, should T not be able to say: “ See, there 
is the body of Christ actually in the bread,”’ just as 1 
can say: ‘ See, there is the spark even in the front part of 
the erystal?”’ Do you not suppose that God fs able moré 


228 THE LORD’S SUPPER: | 


wonderfully and more truly to place the body of Christ 
in the bread, though that same body might be even at 
a single spot in heaven, than to place this spark before 

_ me as it appears in the crystal ? 
162. I do not think that this is certainly so, but that 
it is not impossible to God. I only wish to furnish the 
Enthusiasts with something upon which to exercise their 
vain talk and false explanations, as they usually do. And 
yet it may plainly appear from this, that they cannot con- 
-demn our interpretation, nor maintain their own position; 
even if it were true, as they say, that Christ is in hea- 
ven at one particular place. QOfthis, however, they have 
“no certain knowledge, and can furnish no proofs so far n- 
deed are they from the evident truth, that, even granting 
their hypothesis to be correct, which is by no means the 
ease, still they cannot demonstrate their view of the 
Eucharist—that the bread is mere bread—nor success- 

fully controvert ours. 

109. Again, in order that they may see, that there 
is no extraordinary skill in speculating without the autho- 
rity of Scripture, I present the illustration of Laurentius 
Valens. Here stands a preacher and he preaches. His 
voice is one single voice, which proceeds from his mouth. 
It is formed and it exists in his mouth. Yet this one in- 
dividual voice, which is in one point, namely, in his mouth, 
passes into four, five, or ten thousand ears in one moment, 
and still there is no ofher voice in those many thousand 
ears, but that which is in the mouth of the preacher, and 
it is in one moment, at the same time one single voice in 
the mouth of the preacher, and in all the ears of the 
people, as if there were not the least intervening space 
between his mouth where the voice is, and the ears of 
the audience. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 299 


101. Beloved, if God can perform this with a human 
voice, why should he not be able to do much more with 
the body of Christ, though this body were even at one 
place, as they say, and yet at the same time in many 
places, actually in the bread and wine, as it were in two ' 


ears? Since his body is far more volatile and swift than 


any voice, all the objects of nature are more pervious 
to him, than the air is to the voice, as he has proved by 
passing through the grave-stone; inasmuch as no voice 
is able to pass through a stone so easily, as the body of 
Christ did. 

165. This illustration I pursue and consider no far- 
ther, than the speculations of the Enthusiasts may be 
true,—that Christ may be at one place physically and 
circumscribed,—in order that you may see even to a 511" 
perfluity, that, should they even contend for this, the 
body of Christ still can be present in the Eucharist, 
through the agency of divine power; because with an 
object far more insignificant, as a voice, a musical tone, or 
a sound, it is not only possible, but even natural and usual, 
besides being palpable and obvious. Therefore their hy- 
pothesis cannot Stand, that the bread ih the Eucharist is 
mere bread, because the body of Christ is in heaven. 

166. Once more; it has thus been taught under 
the Papacy,—if a mirror were to be broken into a thou- 
sand pieces, the same image or representation would re- 
main entire in every one of the pieces, w hich app seared 
just before in the unbroken glass. Here is the face 
of a man; he stands before and looks into the glass, 
and now the very same face is in every piece of the 
alass, whole and entire at the same time. How now if 
Christ is thus in the bread, and the wine, and every where! 
For if God can do this with a man’s face and a mirror, 


20 


Ν κα 


os 


8 Z 


230 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


causing this face instantly to be in a thousand pieces 
or little mirrors, why can he not also make the body 
of Christ so, that not only his image, but he him- 
self may be at many places at the same time, though 
he is even in heayen at one spot? because it is much 
easier for his body to enter into the bread and wine, than 
countenance into the mirror, as he passed even through 
stone and iron, through which no image or countenance 
ean pass. 

107. “0 thou double-facecd Papist !? here they will 
exclaim. Well, exclaim whoever will; with exclama- 
tions we shall not long be answered, nor I be contro- 


verted; or else it may be well for the geese, or the asses, or 


the well-fed peasants to become theologians. Never as 
vet have I seen a portion of the church, which the Enthusi- 
asts,—these mighty Rolands and giants,—have with- 
drawn from the Pope, that might give them reason te 
triuraph so proudly against the Papists. ‘They have mut- 
tered a little at the poor wood and stone,—the images,— 
but they have not bitten them yet. Now they assail the 
sacrament of baptism and the Eucharist, but they have 
not quite banished them as yet. 

163. I know also quite well, that they might exe 
claim here, “ The images in the mirror are not the coun- 
tenance itself, but only its representation, as the bread 

and wine are the signs of Christ’s body ; hénce this illus- 
tration is more in our favor than opposed to us.”? But 
then again I know perfectly well, that the bréad and 
wine are not like the body of Christ; as the image in the 
mirror is like the countenance itself. Therefore my il- 
lustration still subsists. If God in one moment can make 
so many images of one countenance in the mirror, and if 
so wonderful a thing can occur naturally and visibly, it 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 931 


ought much rather to be believed, that he can cause the 
body of Christ to be in many places actually in the bread 
and wine, though he may be confined to one physical 
point, as they imagine. I have given this illustration 
in order*to show how absolutely insignificant their con- 
eeit is, as they cannot in reference to Christ imagine more 
than the single circumscribed mode of existence. And 
even if this were true, still no important consequence 
would follow, which they wish to deduce from it. Now, 
far less will it follow, since the body of Christ does not 
exist in heaven in so physical, circumscribed a mode, nor 
ean they demonstrate, that he does exist in heaven in this" 
mode. 

169. As to the imputation which this Enthusi- 
ast urges against me, that by asserting the body of 
Christ to be every where, wherever God exists, I would 
become a Marcionist, and be making an imaginary 
Christ ; because his body cannot become so huge and be 
so much expanded as to encompass the Godhead which 15. 
omnipresent; I reply, in the first place, that the mystic 
very likely speaks in this way from an inordinate appe- 
tite and petulant disposition ; for he does not prove that 
this follows from my reasoning, and therefore I utterly 
disregard his gossip. 

170. In the second place, well enough does he know, 
that to allege a want of fitness or agreement, does not 
refute an argument. Were it sufficient to overthrow a 
principle, that a single expression is not quite consistent, 
no article of the Creed, indeed no system of justice could 
stand. But this low malicious Enthusiast suffers him- 
self to imagine, that if he merely says in regard to any 
point, ‘It is inconsistent, such and such a consequence 
must necessarily follow,”—that it must inevitably be so, 


232 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


and that there is no need of proof. In the third place, he 
brings in this way to the heht of day his gross and mad- 
dened imaginations, as he can form no other concep- 
tion of the existence of God in every place, than as if 
God were a huge, broad Being, which fills the world 
and stretches out through the universe. Just as a bag 
full of straw is swelled out, and expands above and be- 
low, even according to the first physical, cireumscribed 
mode. Were would the body of Christ be sure enough 
a mere fable and phantom, like an immense bag of straw, 
in Which would be God with the heavens and the earth. 
Is not this sufficiently degraded, to think or to speak 
concerning God? 

171. Wespeak not thus; but we say that God is not 
a Being expanded so long, broad, thick, high, deep; but 
ἃ Being supernatural and inscrutable; one who is capable 
of existing in every little grain, full and entire, and at the 
same time, extends into all, over all, and beyond all 
the creation. Therefore there is no need of diminu- 
tion or contraction here, as this Enthusiast imagines. 
For a single body is far, far too wide for the Divine 
ity, and it can contain many thousand Divinities 
within it; while on the other hand it is infinitely too 
small, so that it cannot contain one single Divinity. 
Nothing is so small, but God 15 still smaller ; nothing so 
large, but God is still larger; nothing is so short, but 
God is still shorter; nothing is so long, but God is still 
longer; nothing is so broad, but God is still broader ; 
nothing is so diminutive, but God is still more diminu- 
“tive, &c.; he is an inscrutable Being, over and beyond 
every thing which can be thought of or imagined. 

172. But here is the point upon which our mystic 
should furnish an answer in the first place, if there be 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 233 


any Scripture or reason to show, that the body of Christ 
possesses no more than one physical, circumscribed mode 
of existing in any place, like straw in a bag, or like bread 
in a basket and meat in the pot; especially since I have 
proved that he has other modes still, as in passing through 
the grave-stone. Again, he should prove that the 
right hand of God is a particular spot in heaven. How 
does it come to pass, that our mystic is so silent here, 
where there is the highest necessity forargument? Now 
since he is so silent here, he certainly has lost the argu-_ 
ment, especially as his belief chiefly depends upon this 
particular point,—that the body of Christ has no other 
mode of existing in heaven, than a local mode, as straw 
in a bag, which has been abundantly proved to be noto- 
riously false. Here he ought to exercise some prudence, 
and to prove his position. Indeed how can he? He 
has sunk too deep in the sewer, and he cannot extricate 
himself. 

173. Then again our mystic ought to answer on this 
point: “‘ Because Christ is both God and man, and be- 
cause his humanity has become one person with God, 
and thus he is wholly and entirely drawn in God over 
all the creation, that he ever cleaves to him, how is it 
possible that God can be in any place in which he 15 
net man? And how could it be shown without a divi- 
sion of the persons, that God is here without the human- 
ity, and there with the humanity? So we, however, 
have not two Gods, but one God only, and this God 
still wholly and entirely man, according to one person, 
namely, the Son. What does it mean that he talks so 
much on other points, and here where there is necessity, 
he leaps over and 15 silent? 

174. Ifthe God and the man constitute one person, 


Η = 
Fh A POR hohe 


234 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


and the two natures are thus united with each other, so 
as to adhere more intimately than body and soul, Christ 
must also be man wherever he is God. If he is at one 
place both God and man, why then should he not be 
at another place man and God? If he is at a second 
place both man and God, why then not at a third, fourth, 
fifth, &c., at all places? Suppose him not to be man and 
God at the same time at the third, fourth, fifth place, you 
must then suppose him not to be man and God at the 
first place. For if place or circumstance can divide the 
person, the first can divide it, as well as all the others. 
Ποῖα it should be answered, in reference to the point on 
which I insisted, when I showed that the God and the 
ynan are one person, and that Christ from that union has 
derived a supernatural essence, or mode of being in every 
place. 

175. If we desire to be Christians, to think and to 
speak justly concerning Christ, we must endeavor to 
conceive him extending in his divinity beyond and above 
the whole universe. In the second place, we must con- 
sider that the humanity, though it is a creature, yet 
since it is the only creature united to God, so 
as to constitute one person with the Divinity, must 
be higher, above, and beyond all other objects of 
nature, yet under God alone. Well, this is our 
Creed. Here we come with Christ beyond all the 
creation, both according to his humanity and his divin- 
ity ; with his humanity we enter into a different clime 
from that in which it moved here upon earth, namely, 
beyond and above all the creation, absolutely into the di- 
vinity. Now let faith here be the judge and arbiter. | 
Beyond the works of nature there 15 nothing but God, 
and accordingly this humanity is also beyond the works 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. . 935 


of nature, therefore it must be wherever God is, a doc- 
trine which can never fail; but essentially it cannot be 
God. But since it extends and cleaves to the essen- 
tial God, and exists wherever he exists, over and beyond 
the creation, it must at least be personally God, and thus 
exist also in every place where God is. 

176. Well, it is true, our understanding here fool- 
ishly presumes to speculate, since it is accustomed to 
understand this little word zn, in no other sense than a 
physical, circumscribed one, like straw cn a bag and bread 
in a basket. Consequently when it hears that God is in 
this thing or in that thing, it always thinks of the straw 
bag and the bread basket. But faith can conceive that 
the word, in, is equivalent on these subjects to over, be- 
yond, under, through and through, and every where. 
Alas! why do I speak of these exalted subjects, which 
are altegether ineffable ?—to the simple unnecessary ; to 
the Enthusiasts, utterly vain and even injurious. For 
they understand it as little as an ass does the bock | 


_ of Psalms; except that they sometimes may extort from 


it some little sentence, which they abuse and mutilate, 
as an excuse for passing untouched the principal points, 
and leaping over them;—as Zwinglius keeps prating 
here, striving to prove from my expressions, that even if 
Christ be every where, he cannot be received by the 
mouth, unless the mouth were every where also. This 
is indeed a perfect example of depravity, in which Satan 
very clearly manifests himself. 

177. Hence I will also decline speaking concern- 
ing these subjects; with whomsoever admonition is 
available, enough has been said upon them ; but let him, 
who will not beadmonisked, always prosecute his way. 
For the unpresuming there is quite enough in the simple 


a a 


236 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


words of Christ, which are spokenin the Eucharist, “ This 
is my body,”’ since the Enthusiasts have produced nothing 
certain or impregnable against it, nor have they answered 
correctly on any point. For whoever is found, on these 
exalted subjects, standing on some peculiar corrupt 
grounds, should reasonably be held in suspicion and 
guarded against. Especially since they boast with so 
much malignity and self-confidence, that they have 
Scripture, and are altogether assured. ον much more 
en this account should they be held in the same light as 
the erring, insolent spirits of faction! because they are 
found not only upon one leose ground of faith, but upon 
several ; so that they are frequently guilty of falsehood, 
and do not answer correctly on any subject. 

178. And more especially is Zwinglius altogether 
unworthy of a serious answer, until he recants his exe- 
crable Alloésis. For, as it is said, “A man guilty of 
notorious falsehoods, is not worthy of an answer; and 
he is to be guarded against as a noterious heretic, who 
denies a public article of faith.’ Now Zwimelius not - 
only denies this most exalted and necessary article,— 
that the Son of God died for us,—but he even abuses it, 
and says, “It is the most outrageous heresy that ever 
existed.”” Hence his own quaint conceit, his abom- 
inable Alloésis, leads him to divide the person of 
Christ, and he leaves to us no other Christ, than a mere 
human being, who has died for us, and has redeemed us. 
What Christian heart, however, can hear this or endure 
it! It is to reject and to condemn at once the whole 
Christian faith, and the salvation of the world. For 
whoever is redeemed by the humanity only, is cer- 
tainly not yet redeemed, nor will he eyer be redeemed. 

179. But to treat of this matter further, there is now 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 237 


neither time nor space. I acknowledge for my own 
part, that I regard Zwinglius void of Christianity in 
all his doctrines. For he understands and teaches no part 
of the Christian faith correctly ; and he is seven times 
worse than when he was a Papist, according to the de= 
elaration of Christ, Matt. 12, 45, “ The last state of 
that man is worse than the first.” I make this confes- 
sion in order that I may be blameless before God and the 
world, as never having been a participator in the doc- 
trine of Zwinglius, nor will I ever be. 

180. The final sum of the whole is, we admit here 
no A//oésis, no Heterosis, no Ithipoia, nor any fancy 
work which Zwinglius can produce out of his fancy 
box. We wish them to derive their reasonings from the 
Scripture; we do not want the conceits of his imagination. 
We make no inquiry about his frantic rage and bluster, 
as if he were seized with a great tempest of passion. 
With rage and passion no one will subvert our inter- 
pretation. This will not enable the frantic Enthusi- 
ast to make us assured, that the body of Christ cannot 
be at the same time in heaven and in the Eucharist, 
as the words declare,—** This is my body.’? Very pro- 
bably in his transport of passion, or from his extreme 
delicacy, he neglects this subject, rushing over it and 
teaching us in the mean time new figures of speech, with 
cut any necessity. 

181. For in reference ta what he concludes and de-. 
duces from my argument,—that if my doctrine is to 
stand,—that the body of Christ is every where, wher- 
ever God is,—the body of Christ would be another im- 
mensity, a boundless thing, like God himself,—he could 
himself plainly discover, if his anger did not blind him, 
that such a consequence cannot follow. If the world in 


238 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


itself is not infinite or endless, how should it follow that 
the body of Christ must be infinite, if it is every where. 


‘Besides this blind Enthusiast draws this false conclusion 


here, aecording to his gross, circumscribed mode; and 
still we know that God has more than one mode of caus- 
ing any thing to be in a place, as has been proved above. 
An angel can at the same time be in heaven and upon 
earth, as Christ shows, Matt. 18, 10, “ Their angels do 
always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” 
If they serve us, they are with us upon the earth, 
and still behold the face of the Father in heaven; yet 
they are not of an infinite or boundless nature. 

182. The gross mystic does not yet know what is 
meant by being in heaven, and wishes to draw inferences 
from it. For when I said that Christ was in heaven, 
while he still was moving upon the earth, as the passage 
in John 3, 13, declares, ‘‘ Even the Son of man, which is 
in heayen,”’ merciful God, how he has drawn his inferen- 
ees here, and how he has chattered! How could,” 
says he, ‘‘ Christ bein heaven at that time? Do they eat 
and drink in heaven? Do they suffer and die also in 
heaven? Do they steep and repose in heaven? Be- 
hold where thou hast come, thou frantie Luther. Shut 
up thy mouth.”? What do you think of this victory of 
the mystic? He has stormed Constantinople and de- 
voured the Turks, where his phantom bag keeps teeming 
with Alloésts and Ithipota. 

183. But depart hence, thou fair devil! Let any 
pious Christian tell me, if it is not far more elevated, far 
more sublime for the humanity to be in God, yes, to be 
ene person with God, than merely to be in heaven? fs 
not God more exalted, more glorious than heaven? Now 
the humanity of Christ from his mother’s womb, was more 


THE LORD'S SUPPER: 939 


deeply and profoundly in God and in the presence of God, 
than any angel, and certainly it was more exaltedin heaven 
thanany angel. For whatever is in God and in the pres- 
ence of God, is in heaven, just as the angels are,even when 
they are upon earth, as it is said in Matt.18,10. It would 
‘turn out in this way, that even God himself could not 
be in heaven. And thus I might also infer by the logic 
of Zwinglius, and ask, ‘‘ Do they eat and drink in the 
Godhead? Do they suffer and die in the Godhead ? 
Behold to what extremity thou hast come, thou frenzied 
John the Evangelist! who art thou that wouldst teach us 
that Christ is God and) inthe: Godheatl?,.: Wot. if with 
God there can be no dying, nor suffering, nor eating, nor 
drinking, the humanity of Christ cannot be with God, 
much less can it be one person with God.” “ Thus 
far | would go,” says the devil, “ with my trickery ; but 
thou malignant Luther, thou hast torn out the bottom 
of my phantom bag.”’ 

184, Now if Christ can suffer and die upon earth, 
though he is at the same time in the Divinity, and is 
one person with the Divinity, why should he not much 
more be able to suffer upon earth, though he be at the 
same time in heaven? _ If the heavens prevent it, far more 
does the Divinity prevent it. Indeed, how if I should 
say, that not only Christ was in heaven, when he was 
moving upon the earth, but also the Apostles and we 
altogether, though we are mortal upon earth, so far as 
we believe in Christ? Here you should for the first time 
lift up the lumber ‘in Zwinglius’ phantom bag. For 
now he would begin to draw his inferences, and to ask: 
‘Do they sin also in heaven? Do they go astray in 
heaven? Are they tempted by the devil also. in heaven? 
Does the world -persecute us also in heaven? Do flesh 


240 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


and blood trouble uS also in heaven? And so forth. Fér 


- ‘we are sinning and going astray without intermission, as 


we learn from the Lord’s Prayer,—‘ Forgive us our 
trespasses,—and we are continually assailed by the 
devil, the world, and the flesh. In this way, you would 
certainly place the devil and the world, flesh and blood, 
in heaven. Behold where thou hast arrived, thou fran- 
tic Luther! Fie, canst thou not yet comprehend that 
our Bonne is no mystic ? and here thou hast an evidence 
for once.’ 

185. How should I act towards him? St. Paul has 
misled me, when he says, Ephes. 1,5, ‘ God hath blessed 
us with all spiritual blessings in sere enly placesin Christ.” 
And again, ch. 2, 5, 6, “He hath quickened us to- 
eether with Christ, ... . and hath raised us up to- 
gether, and made us sit together in heavenly places, in 
Christ Jesus.”” And Colos. 3, 3, he says, Our lives are 
concealed with Christ in God. This certainly is to be 
in heaven; but our mystic quite conveniently can here 
eall for his phantom bag, in order that it may furnish 
him some 4/loésis or Ithipoia, which may teach us to 
exchange, and to take one thing for another,—that 
heaven means the earth,—as he says also on John 
6, 55, that the flesh of Christ must mean his divinity. 
For this dloésis is the mistress in the Scripture, and 
if we are unwilling to believe, he will constrain us 
by consequences, and declare, “We are certainly not 
upon the mount of Olives, and from thence ascending 
to heaven; but we are ἘΜ in Germany; therefore St. 
Paul by “eee must certainly mean the earth.” For 
this Enthusiast understands no more by heaven, than for 
him to direct his finger and eyes above him, where the 
sun and moon are standing; and because these lumina- 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 241 


ries never stand still, I contend that they assign to Christ 
such a place in heaven, as he can never be able to sit still. 
For I cannot imagine, nor can I draw from them what 
kind of a place they assign to Christ inheaven. But let 
it go for what it is worth. 

186. Thus upon my quotation from Cel. 2, 9, “In 
Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” 
he thinks it unnecessary to say more, than that bodily 
means essentéally, precisely as 1f Christ had not been 
also essentially God, before God dwelt bodily in Christ. 
it is a fine thing that this mystic can explain whatever 
he wishes, and has no need of proving it. Just as the 


passage in Ephes. 4, 10, ‘“‘ He that descended is the same’ ϑ 


also that ascended up far above all! heavens, that he might 
fill all things.”” Here he understands by fi/ding, fulfill- 
ing the Holy Seriptures; and he triumphs once more over 
the frantic Luther, as if he had stormed the regions below. 
But for him to prove this interpretation, is quite unnec= 
essary ; it is sufficient for the Genzws to say so; the pemt 
is then sufficiently answered, and our interpretation is 
false. 

187. But he hits I:uther right for one time, when 
he proves his consequences. drawn from the declaration 
of Christ, “‘ Where I am, there shall ye be also.” “ Be- 
hold,” says he, “if Christ 15 every where, we must be 
every where also.”’? 1 am astonished that he does not 
also infer, that, because we are where Christ is, we must 
all be God and man also; for Christ is where he is 
God and man. Again, Christ passed through the 
sealed stone and the closed door, therefore we must 
also pass through them. Again, Christ exists spirit- 
ually in us; therefore we must exist also spiritually in us. 

188. Yea, again; he might very reasonably infer, that 

21 


949 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ot where Christ is, there we cannot be. For itis just about 


ν᾽ 


as unreasonable for many bodies to be in one place, as 
- for one body to be in many places; but because 
Christ sits in heaven at a certain point, as they say, it 
raust follow that each one will have his own particular 
place. Now because this expression,—‘ Where I am, 
there shall ye be also,’’—is opposed to the Scripture and 
the Creed, if it is to be understood as it reads, madam 
illoésis, or Heterosis, or probably the common figure 
-Varrosis, will here stand godfather, and help us on to 
a correct interpretation. But I cannot pursue their 
wire-drawn inferences. 

189. Now the sow cannot be considered a dove, nor 
the cuckoo a nightingale. This ignorant Enthusiast 
writes upon the Scripture just as he pleases, and he proves 
by all his garrulity, that because he cannot make a res 


_ ply, he will overwhelm us with his railery. But we 


know that the Scriptures place this particular person, and 
no other, at the right hand of God. Now if we should 
even be where he is, according to the first or the second 
mode as above described, we shall not, however, be where 
he is, according to the third mode, namely, at the right 
hand of God, as one person with God, according to which 
mode Christ exists where God is. Indeed, since he 18 
every where, we are certainly where he is; for he must 
be always with us, if he is every where. This conclu- 
sion ought our spirit of inference to have confuted, instead 
of which he confuses it together, and is resolved to know 
nothing more than the one circumscribed mode. Beyond 
this he is able to understand nothing at all, and does not 
even himself comprehend what he rants about in his fran- 
tic declamation. 

19). Let this suffice in reference to the first princi* 


THE LURD’S SUPPER. 943 


pal objection; for any person can easily perceive from 
the expressions and replies of our mystic here repeated, 
that their whole art consists in declaiming and railing 
aloud, but nothing can they answer or understand ; and 
the more Scripture they quote, the more they expose 
their insanity to the light of day. We shall now treat of 
their second quotation, ‘‘ The flesh profiteth nothing,”’ 
and hear whether Satay is willing to answer or to rail. 

191. In the first place, when I wrote that the flesh 
of Christ was not indicated in the expression of John 3, 
6, ‘“‘ That which is born of the flesh, is flesh,’? but ra- 
ther in this: ‘‘ That which is born of the spirit, 15 spirit ;”’ 
I proved incontestably, from our Creed, and from the 
Gospel, where the angel says to Joseph, Matt. 1, 20, 
That which is conceived in Mary, ts of the Holy Ghost; 
and Luke 1,35, That which shall be born of thee, is 
holy. Against these invincible testimonies of Scripture, 
he has nothing more than his barren, naked drivel to pro- 
duce, and he says that, ‘‘ The flesh of Christ also is born 
of flesh, and that I do wrong in making mere spirit out 
of it.’ ‘This is the same, as ὃ understand, as if the in- 
solent moeker were to say, “ Thou impotent, crazy Lu- 
ther! must I answer thee, and confute thy arguments? 
Ἐ spurn thee! I say the flesh of Christ is born of flesh. 
There let it rest, and mutter not a word against it.” 

192. Here with propriety might I say,— my gra- 
gious young lord, whatever you say, is correct, and 
needs no proof,’—were the subject of as little im- 
portance to me as to this Enthusiast, who, although he 
feels that I have confuted him, either skips the main 
difficulty, becomes angry, or mutters a word or two by 
halves, and then calls it an answer. 


193. But we know that the flesh of Christ is not 


P44 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


included in the sentence, ‘* That which is born of the flesh, 


is flesh,” though this sentence were deemed a marim 
with tenfold more propriety than it is, though it contained 
fifteen .4//céses—those vain banks of exchange. Εἰ 
adds nothing to the force of the argument, to call this 
sentence a maxim; for Christ is here speaking of the 
new birth, and he condemns the old birth by the flesh, 
because it cannot see the kingdom of God. And 
therefore be the declaration accursed and execrated 
which would assert, that the flesh of Christ is born of 
flesh! Sinee the flesh of Christ is not condemned, it 
needs not be born again for the kingdom of God, but it 
is holy and has brought us the new birth. 

194, Who hassent this genius to school, and taught 
him what flesh and spirit mean? For he calls flesh a 
creature, which is not spirit, since God has created it, as 
Christ declares, Luke 24, 39, “ A spirit hath not flesh 
and bones.” How is it possible, that he should under- 
stand the passages in John 3, and similar passages, in 
this sense, when flesh and blood are condemned,— 
since we know that all the creation of God is good, Gen. 
1. and that God does not condemn his own creation ? 
tm this way, the flesh and blood of Christ have cer- 
tainly descended from the flesh and blood of Mary ; 
but because flesh and blood are condemned, accord- 
ing to John 3, 6, as they cannot see the kingdom of 
(rod, they cannot truly be ealled creatures of God, as 
flesh, bones, skin, and hair are called, for all these are 
good creatures of God. 

195. Consequently flesh here must mean blood, bone, 
and marrow, not only as it is a creature of God, but as 
it is distinct from spirit, and exists in its own power, 
operation, use, sensation, purpose, and condition. Thus 


a 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 245 


whenever the flesh performs any thing in divine matters, 


according to its own skill and power, then “the flesh — 


profiteth nothing,” but it is condemned. In consequence 
of this, Christ would not be born from the seed of mar, 
in order that he might be born, not from the flesh,—that 
is, from the work, lust, will, or aid of the flesh,—but 
alone from the power and operation of the Holy Ghost ; 
and thus his flesh is pure spirit, holiness, purity ; for 
what can holiness, purity, innocence be but spirit, pure 
spirit? 

196. But our Enthusiasts understand by spirit, noth- 
ing more than a being which has neither flesh nor bones ; 
consequently holiness, purity, innocence, is not spirit with 
them. They are, however, gross, illiterate driveliers ; 
they wish to teach a great deal, and do not understand the 
words which they speak on these subjects. per 
John 3, 6, calls all those spirit, who are born of the 
Spirit, who must, it is true, have flesh, bones, marrow, 
skin, and hair. Of this I have written sufficiently in my 
former book; for though i should write a thousand times 
as much, if my beloved young noblemen, the Enthusi- 
asts, still do not read nor regard it, f must even let them 
go On. 


profiteth nothing.’ Let us hear and see how the fran- 
tic man imagines falsehoods so virulent, through his own 
blinded, miserable fanaticism. The first is, that my own 
arguments are contradictory, because I have repeatedly 
taught, that the bodily eating of the body of Christ is 
useless ; and taught on the other hand that the eating οὗ 
the flesh of Christ, is profitable. My little books are 
before the public, from which people may fully convict 


197. Three gross offences dces this nee jast al- 
lege against me, in reference to the words,—‘‘ The fe sh | 


= 


246 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


this spirit of falsehood, that he has acted towards me, as 
admirably beseems such a scholar. Beloved, what bene- 
fit could be derived from writing forever against this man, 
since he takes especial pains to frame his notorious and 
shameless falsehoods? Let the wicked man go on. 

198. I have thus taught, and I still teach, that the 
flesh of Christ is not only of no benefit, but it is even 
poison and death, if it be eaten without faith and the 
power of the word. I have said still further, that God 
himself and the Holy Ghost are pure poison, and death, 
and void of all benefit, if they be received without faith. 
For we have the Scripture declarations: “ To the im- 
pure nothing is pure,” Tit. 1,15. Again, Psalm 18, 
26, “ With the froward thou wilt show thyself froward.” 
¥or certainly the Jews did not become holy when they seiz- 
ed Christ and put him to death. But, on the other hand, 
to eat the flesh of Christ is salutary, necessary, and use- 
ful, if it be eaten bodily in connection with the word and 
with faith. For the Scripture declares, “ΤῸ the pure 
all things are pure.” Read my book if you wish to see 
that this spirit of falsehood did not know how to answer, 
and hence, by his gross, uncourteous falsehoods he wishes 
to bring my book into distrust. 

199. <A child of seven years old can fully understand, 
that these two propositions are not opposed to each other: 
To eat the flesh of Christ bodily without faith, is of 
no benefit ; and, To eat the flesh of Christ bodily with 


faith, is beneficial. Even as these two propositions are 


not opposed: The flesh of Christ ts unprofitable to the 
godless, and, The flesh of Christ is beneficial to the 
pious ; as I have abundantly shown in my last little 
book, that with the faithful even death and every evil is 
a benefit, much more then the flesh of Christ, which in 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 247 


itself is holy and useful, and full of the divinity. Nor 
need this spirit of lies falsely to pretend, that I should 
have said that the flesh of Christ is usefully eaten without 
faith, as he passionately argues with hisexamples. For 
a touch was not useless, when the woman affected with 
an issue of blood touched the hem of Christ’s garment; 
or else we must even say, that she did not touch his gar- 
ment, because a touch profiteth nothing! In this man- 
ner do they falsely argue: “ Te eat the flesh of Christ 
profiteth nothing ; therefore his flesh is not present in the 
Eucharist.”” Oh it is all the villany of the evil one. 

200. The second ofience which he charges upon me, 
as, that I have not properly translated the text,—*“ Flesh 
profiteth nothing ;” because m Greek it stands thus: 
“ The flesh profiteth nothing,” and I have omitted the 
little word the. Why our Enthusiast resorts to this 
irivolous argument, i cannet determine, unless he ex- 
pects to draw meby it from my position, and delude peo- 
ple so as to make them admire the superior knowledge 
of the Greek language in his head, where he has not, at the 
same time, forgotten a great-deal of it. If he knows that 
this sophistry is altogether inapplicable to the subject, his 
reasoning is a villanous artifice ; if he does not know it, it 
is an evidence that he still has need awhile of a school- 
master.’ For those who are versed in Latin, German, 
and Greek, must agree with me, that this text, ἡ σαρξ 
‘evy οῴελεν ovdev, translated into Latin must read thus, 
Caro non prodest quicquam, that is, Flesh profiteth 
nothing ; and the word the cannot be prefixed in Latin, 
as Erasmus and all have translated it. 

201. And further; every German will testify that, 
according to the most common use and practice of our 
language, it is often equally proper for the word das or 


hs 


248 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ein to be prefixed or omitted. As when we say, “ Man > 


and wife are one flesh,”’ it is perfectly equivalent to, “ A 
man and a wife are one flesh ;”’ indeed it is more ele- 
gantly said, “* Man and wife are one flesh,” than, “A 
man and a wife are one flesh.” Again, “ Peter has 
house and farm, wife and child at Bethsaida,” is pre- 
eisely the same as, “‘ Peter has a house and a farm, a 
wife and a child at Bethsaida.”” Again, “ Lord and lad 
are a medley,” is exactly equal to, “The lord and the 
jad area medley.”” Again, “ He gave me dog for dog, 
horse for horse,”’ are the same as, ‘‘ He gave me a dog 
for a dog, a horse for a horse.” Again, “ Woman 
should not be lord in the house,” 15 equivalent to, ‘ A 
woman,” or, “‘ The woman should not be the lerd”’ or 
ἐᾷ lord in the house.” 

202. And so, many examples of this kind will be 
found in the German language. And this little word 
which may thus be omitted or employed, the learned 
have called the article. In the Latin language there is 
no article; and no one in any language can lay down a 
determinate limit or rule, when this little word should 
be omitted, or when inserted, but its use or omission 
must be learned from the ordinary custom of the lan- 
guage. For it sometimes happens, that the style be- 
comes more elegant by omitting the article; as when 1 
speak concerning two objects which are equal: ‘ Man 
is opposed to man.” This is more elegant than if I say, 
« A man is opposed to a man.”” And this again is the 
case if we say, “ Member for member; eye for eye; 
hand for hand; money for money; body for body.”? In 
these expressions it is better to omit the article than to 
insert it. 

203. On the other hand, it is sometimes a great deal 


_— 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 249 


more elegant to prefix the article than to omit it} as 
when I say, “ A man is stronger than a woman ;’’ or, 
“The man is stronger than the woman.” Though it 
would be equivalent in sense, if should say, ‘ Man is 
stronger than woman,” it does not, however, read so 
well. “An apostle is a more exalted character than a 
prophet,”’ reads better than, ““ Apostle is more exalted 
character than prophet.” 

204. Indeed it frequently happens, that we must in- 
sert these articles in other languages, when the Greek 
article is omitted, as, in Matt. 1, 1, the original stands, 
Βιβλος γενεθεως, that is, “ Book of the birth of Jesus 
Christ ;”’ which does not read well at all. Consequently 
i must translate it, “The book of the birth,’’ or still 
better thus, “‘ This is the book concerning the birth of 


Jesus Christ.” Again, “ Joseph did as the angel of the 


Lord commanded him,”’ when in Greek there is no arti- 
cle standing before Lord (xvpos), but merely, “ the an- 


gel of Lord.” In our language, however, it must be 


inserted. Again, Matt. 3, 3, and Mark 1, 3, Luke 3, 
4, we must say, “A voice,” or, “" The voice of one 
crying in the wilderness,” though in Greek it stands 
merely, “ voice of one crying.” 

205. On the other hand, we sometimes need not 
apply an article in our language, though it must be ap- 
plied in Greek; as in Matt. 1, 2, 23, “ Abraham. begat 
Isaac,’ where it stands in Greek, ‘“‘ Abraham begat 
the fsaac.”* Again, “ Emmanuel, which being inter- 
preted, is, God with us,” stands in Greek, “the God 
with us.” Take up a Greek Testament, and hold one 
in the German language opposite ; you will discover, as 
I have said, that very often the article stands there in 
the Greek, when it must not stand in the German; and 


ὡς τς Θόας ἐξ σα. ἐς ον ον. ἴδ ῶς 


250 THE LORD’S SUPFER.. 


on the other hand, you will frequently observe it omit= 
ted in the Greek, when it must be inserted in German. 
206. I have said this in order that people may un- 
derstand how Zwinglius deals out his sophistry, and lays 
down this loose loquacity as the foundation of his errors. 
For if the article were so indispensable, or something 
particular or dependent were to be said requiring the ar 
ticle,as he insists, with season it ought tostand in Mark f,. 
&, where Mark says, “ Voice of one crying,” (as it stands 
in theoriginal,) inasmuchas this was a particular voice and 
a particular cryer, such as never at any other time appeared 
upon the earth. Again, it ought reasonably to stand in 
John 1, 6, where he writes, ‘“‘ There was a man sent 
from God.” Now it stands in Greek, not, “‘ There was 
aman,” but, “ there was man sent from God.’ And 
so on without end, so that Zwingtius raust still study 
reek full five years, before he.can prove his dream con-. 
cerning the article, or before he can show when and 
where it must be omitted or inserted. I know no other 
proof than the fact, that the same identical idea may be. 
expressed, as I have said, with the article and without 
it, conveying also the same impression; but the one 15 
merely more full and elegant than the other, which we. 
must learn trom the custom and usage of the language. 
207. So in this passage, “ Flesh profiteth nothing,”’ 
in Greek it reads well with the article, ‘“‘ The flesh pro- 
fiteth nothing ;”’ but because one is precisely equivalent 
to the other, as [ have proved from examples above, and 
each one for himself may find similar passages abundant 
in Greek, I have translated also,in both ways, and hence-. 
forth I will use both modes of translation, because 
both are correct ; and: should the caul of this Enthusiast 
burst, still it reads better in German to say, FVeisch ist 


5s SUPPER. 951 


THE LORD 
kein ntitze, than to say, Das Fleisch ist kein niitze. 
The meaning of Christ is the same as if I should 
say, ‘‘ There.is nothing profitable, however, in flesh Ἢ 
or, “Flesh is ἃ useless thing.’ This meaning you 
may now express thus: “Flesh profiteth nothing,” 
or, “The flesh profiteth nothing.’ One conveys 
the same idea as the other. Were this not the case, 


the Latin language never could have received or ren* 


dered this text, because it is obliged to say without 
the article, “Flesh profiteth nothing }” and still we 
have a correct translation in Latin. But for Zwinglius 
to have recourse to certain teachers, who give such in- 
struction concerning the article, will be of no avail to 
him; for these men do not teach as Zwinglius does in 
this passage ; the translation of the passage does not dis+ 
agree with ¢hetr arguments. Besides Zwinglius is not 
altogether in earnest; for he does not consider;them so 
learned, that they should counsel or assist him in these 
matters. 

208. Now he is not content merely with his sophis- 
try in reference to the article, but proceeds and ren- 
ders the article the in this passage,— The flesh 
profiteth nothing,’’—thus: “Even that flesh profiteth 
nothing,”’—proving that the and even that are of equal 


force. He will construe the meaning of Christ thus: 


τ Keven that flesh, (understand the flesh of which I spoke 
above, saying, ‘My flesh is meat indeed’).” Now 
every body knows, that in our Jancuage; that or even that 
is not an article, but a good, forcible pronoun, which is at 
ihe same time a relative and demonstrative, like the word 
idem. Here all the learned well understand, what an 
egregious blunder it is to make a demonstrative and re- 
lative pronoun out of an article. This is the manner in 


ἋΥ 


959 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


which Luther must be taught to translate the texts 
What beginning, however, must a person make with 
these frantic Enthusiasts, who take substance for quality, 
article for pronoun, flesh for divinity, and who make all 
assumptions in the Scripture, which they dare only to 
imagine? If he has learned this spectlation about the 
artiéle from Cyril, Chrysostom, and Erasmus, he has 
certainly read those authors in a dream, or in some 
smoky garret, for not ὁπὸ of them teach him thus; δὲ 
really misrepresents them. , 

209. Beloved, there is a vast difference between this 
expression, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” and this: 
“This flesh profiteth nothing ;”’ or, τς Even that flesh,” 
or, “the same flesh.”? For even that, or this, or the 
same, cannot be omitted like the article, without alter- 
ing thesense. If{ say, ‘‘ The man should be master in 
the house, and not the woman,” by this expression I 
point out no definite man or woman actually present, but 
I speak only in general terms concernmg women and 
men. But if I say, “ This,” or, “Even that man 
should be master, and not this or even that woman,” I 
here point out one particular man and woman distin- 
guished from all others, as being actually present. For 
the word das is called a pronoun, if it points out a par- 
ticular person or object, as if it were present, and sepa- 
rates it from all others. | 

210. But an article does not distinguish a particular 
or present object from others, but only limits its signifi- 
cation without pointing out or specifying. As when it 
is said, ‘* This man is pious; this woman is chaste; this 
bread is beautiful;”? here the expressions refer to par- 
ticular persons and objects, as being present ; and if this 
hittle word or pronoun should be omitted, and we should 


ΤῊ LORD'S SUPPER. 5a 


say, “‘ Man is pious; woman is chaste,”’ the sense would 
si be altogether different from the preceding. But if 
ἵ say, “ The man should be a man; the woman should 
be a woman,”’ I can omit the arijole with propriety » and 
still retain the sense; as, “‘ Man should be man; woman 
should be woman ;”’ i the article does not point them 
out as present, or asif they were present, as the pronoun 
does. 

211. Now since our Enthusiast must acknowledge, 
that in this passage—“ The flesh profiteth nothing’? — 
there is no pronoun, but an article, and since he still makes 
a pronoun out of it, not only in the translation, where he 
says, the word das is equivalent to even that (eben das), 
but also in the annotation, where he says that in 
the passage the same flesh is meant, concerning which 
Christ had spoken above, John 6, 55, “My flesh is 
meat indeed,’”’ he evidently here himse!f demonstrates 
that he misrepresents the word of God, and trifles dis 
honestly with the simple. For an article never refers to 
preceding or specified objects, like the pronoun; but it 
merely indicates their general classification, so that we 
can understand equally as well, if those objects are spo- 
ken of without an article, though sometimes the style 
would not be so neat and elegant. Consequently it is 
impossible, in strict grammatical propriety, that flesh can 
here mean the flesh particularly of Christ, concerning 
which he had just been speaking ; but it must mean flesh 
in general, so that we can speak of it with perfect pro= 
priety without an article; namely, thus: “Flesh profit 
eth nothing.” * 


*In further confirmation of his argument, Luther. here presents 
a lucid exposition of the very disingenuous advantage which Zwin- 
glius has attempted to derive from the ambiguity in the German 


22 


254. ΟΣ SUPPER: ΝΣ 


wv, 


212. After this he proceeds in earnest to the subject 
in hand, and wishes to prove from the text, John 6, 63, 
that Christ is speaking of his own flesh, when he says, 
‘The flesh profiteth nothing.””? Here let us listen to 
his logic. ‘In the first place,”’ says he, “ the disciples 
murmured because Christ taught them that they must 
eat his flesh. Now they did not murmur against the 
spiritual sense, bat against the bodily, eating ; look 
at the passage.’ Beloved, tell me, is this a proof 
that the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing? Or is ita 
proof that this passage must be understood concerning 


word Das: this word being sometimes used as a proneun demon- 
strative, and sometimes merely as an article. Or rather, the neuter 
demonstrative pronoun das, and the neuter article das conforming 
so exactly in appearance and orthography, though differing widely 
in oral pronunciation, offer a tempting advantage to the uncandid 
expositor. Luther here points out at some length, and with great 
~ precision, the difference which results in German, from giving the — 4 
vowel @ in this word ἃ long-sound or a short one; as in the eee 
case it would be a pronoun, and signify tkés, while in the latter, it 
would be an article, and signify the. Consequently, the different 
pronunciatiens of this word in German, would convey to a German 
ear the same difference of impression, which we feel on hearing the 
expressions, ‘the flesh,” and, “ ἐψὲς flesh;’? the former giving us 
the idéa of Hesh iz general, and the latter, of the flesh of Christ. 
And he corroborates this statement by appealing to the fact, 
that the word das, when an article, is frequently so much con- 
tracted by German speakers, as to suppress the vowel entirely; as 
we often hear with regard to our article the, since the most of 
speakers would say, “ th’ flesh,”’ and not, “the flesh,” a contrac- 
tion which occurs repeatedly in our poetry. It only remains to 
add, that in the original Greek, the word n, my caps, is evidently 
an article, and consequently in ‘attempting to represent its German 
expression das as a pronoun, Zwinglius is guilty of a sophism. It 
was deemed unnecessary to translate the reasoning of Luther in his 
three paragraphs on this word; since the English, being provided with 
the distinct words ἔλα and ¢iis, can admit no such ambiguity of Tari 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. ἡ 255 


the flesh of Christ? For certainly in the logic of Zwin- 
glius, every kind of consequence follows just as he wishes. 
Oh! it isa most vexatious thing, to treat upon the words 
of God with such a knave. 

213. We say that the disciples murmured both 
against the spiritual meaning, and against the bodily 
eating of the flesh of Christ ; for they understood neither 
aright, because they thought they must tear his flesh with 
their teeth, as they did other perishable flesh. But from 
this it does not follow still, that the flesh of Christ, 
as an imperishable, a spiritual flesh, may not be 
eaten bodily by faith in the Eucharist. This our Enthu- 
siast should confute, instead of which he teaches us how 
the disciples understood the bodily eating of the flesh of 
Christ, precisely as 1f we would not have known it without 
the aid of his master-spirit; but he avoids an answer 
whenever he can. | 

214. In the second place, he teaches us that the 
disciples were offended at this expression of Christ, 
concerning this bodily eating of his flesh; therefore it 
should follow that Christ speaks in his reply concern- 
ing his own flesh. Beloved, why doesit follow? Why, 
it is sufficient, because Zwinglius says so! Precisely as 
if Christ was unable to speak of other flesh, if he wishes 
to convey a spiritual idea concerning the eating of his 
flesh. Although he could not have spoken more ele- 
gantly than to indicate two kinds of flesh, and to teach 
two kinds of eating, and in substance to speak thus: 
* Flesh and blood will not permit you to understand 
this to mean eating my flesh; for that flesh profit- 
eth nothing, but this flesh is life.” Because, to dis- 
tinguish and to define well, is the genuine and best 
kind of instruction, Consequently it follows with 


᾿ νὰν" * ay 
206," ‘THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ereater certainty, that this expression—“ The flesh prox 
fiteth nothing’’—must be understood as having reference 
to other flesh, which Christ discriminates and opposes to 
his own, as all correct teachers strive to do, whenever 
they give their best instruction. 

215. Yn the third place, Christ says, “If ye shall 
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before.’ 
Unless eyery thing which this Enthnsiast chooses 
to prate about, must contribute to his falsehoods, Ε 
cannot conceive what he means. Perhaps he wishes 
to sing their common old song, Christ has ascended 
into heaven, therefore his body cannot be eaten in the 
Eucharist. But we have shown above sufficiently what 
this gossip amounts to. But for him to wish to prove 
by this, that the expression—‘‘ The flesh profiteth noth- 
- ing’’—has reference to the flesh of Christ, is indeed a — 
lofty logic,—a most beautiful consequence! Asif Fshould ~ 
say, ‘ Christ has ascended to heaven; therefore this ex- 
pression must be understood concerning his body,— All 
men are liars, Rom. 3, 4,—does it not follow and cor- 
respond beautifully? This, in the Swiss dialect, is called 
a defeat of Luther, so that not a soldier remains, as the 
mystic boastfully pretends. 

216. Inthe fourth place, “Itis the Spirit that quick- 
eneth ;”—“ Here, here,”’ says he, “this is brief and ex= 
cellent; this expression shows that since the Spirit 
alone quickeneth, the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing, 
for it is not spirit. So, upon this point we must say, 
** Because the flesh of Christ is not spirit, and on this 
account is unprofitable, sinee the spirit only ἢ is profita- 
ble, how can it be profitable when it was given for us? 
How can it be profitable, ifit is in heavenand we believeon 
it. For if the reasoning is correct and complete, that be- 


ee 


- 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. ἃ» wae 


cause the flesh of Christis not spirit,it cannot be profitable, 
it can then not be profitable either onthe crossor in heaven; 
for it is quite as far from being spirit on the cross and in 
heaven, as in the Eucharist. Now because no spirit was 
crucified for us, the flesh of Christ was unprofitably cru- 
cified for us; and because no spirit, but the flesh of Christ 
has ascended into heaven, we therefore believe on a use- 
less flesh in heayen; for the flesh of Christ, be it wher- 
ever it may, is no spirit. it is not spirit, therefore 
it is not profitable, and does not confer life, as Zwin- 
elius here contends. Behold where the devil wishes to 
creep out; this is to drive the mist from the eyes neatly. 

217. Inthe fifth place, <‘Thewordsthat I speak unto 
you, they arespirit, and they are life.” From thishe infers 
that Christ speaks concerning /zs flesh, where he says, 


3 “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Oh, what a beautifal 


consequence! just like the last above! I believe this 
Enthusiast, through his egregious arrogance thinks there 
is no man upon the earth, or regards all men as mere 
geese and jackdaws; as it would be impossible, in any 
other view, for him to be so passionate and impudent as 
to expose to the light of day folly so gross as this. 
218. Well do we know, that the words of Christ 
are spirit and they are life; but that it should follow 
from this, that the flesh of Christ is unprofitable, no man 
will assert, unless he is frantic and distracted, or proudly 
despises the sense and convictions of all the world. This 
Enthusiast says it follows; but when will he prove such 
a consequence? Certainly even these words also of 
Christ—“‘ The flesh profiteth nothing’”’—are spirit and 
life ; for by this he enlightens us, and turns us from flesh 
to spirit—a salutary spiritual doctrine, which confers 
life. Now it is indeed a notorious blasphemy, if any 


t 
— © 258 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


one would say, that Christ wishes to turn us from his 
flesh, to which he still turns us, however, and says, 
_ “My flesh is meat indeed,” vy. 55; unless madam .4/- 
loésis once again is allowed to make for usa divinity of 
flesh. But let us not listen to the sorceress. 

219. In the sixth place, Christ says, ‘‘ There 
are some of you that believe not,” y. 64. Again, 
Peter says, v. 68, “Τὸ whom shall we go? thou hast 
the words of eternal life.” Out of these two passages, 
our Enthusiast again draws his inferences, and spins out 
his arguments, that because these expressions relate to 
faith and the life-giving word, the flesh of Christ must 
be understood in the passage—‘ The flesh profiteth 
nothing,’’—and Christ does not begin anew to speak of 
some other flesh. I have heard many insane conclusions 
or consequences in the eourse of my life, but a conclusion 
more insane or presumptuous I have never heard, than 
this which our Enthusiast draws, that, because Christ 
speaks of faith and the word, it must follow, that the 
proposition, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” has reference 
to his flesh. I hold it as a truth, that this Enthusiast 
has no other thoughts in his heart but the following: 
““We, Gwinglius, by the grace of God, a giant and 
a Roland, a hero and warrior in Italy and Germany, 
in France and Spain; apostle of all apostles; pro- 
phet of all prophets; teacher of all teachers; master 
of all masters; scholar of all scholars; lord of all lords; 
genius of all genii,—say so and so; and thus only 
roust it be.”? Fer how could it be possible, for him 
to run on so presumptuously, to draw conclusions and 
to argue upon the Scriptures and the word of God 
every where, if he were not bewildered by human pride 
and presumption ? 


a ol 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 209 Ὁ 


220. We poor sinners and eaters of flesh have no- 
where indeed and never said, that Christ commenced 
anew where he said, ‘“ The flesh profiteth nothing,” as 
this mystic has charged us; but we confess even to this 
day, that Christ, where he begins to speak concerning 
his own flesh, speaks throughout, incessantly, to the 
end of the chapter, John 6, 51, concerning the spir- 
itual eating of his flesh; because in consequence of his 
expressions, there arose two classes of his hearers,— 
some who were offended, who murmured, and forsook 
him ; some who believed, who praised, and remained with 
him; so, from this difference of opinion, without any new 
commencement, he might say, “It is the Spirit that quick- 
eneth; the flesh prefiteth nothing ;”’ which wehave not un- 
derstood otherwise than as follows: “ My doctrine is spir- 
itual; whoever understands it in a fleshly manner, must 
fail, and this mode of understanding it profiteth nothing ; 
but whoever understands it spiritually, shall live.’ Here 
nothing new is said concerning the eating of his flesh; 
but he points out a distinction among those who listened 
to him, and we have always been ready to learn it differ- 
ently, if any one would show a good reason. 

221. As if I should declare in Pe ‘* Good 
works profit nothing to righteousness.”” Here I would 
createtwoclassesof men. Some would be offended, would 
murmur, fly from my instruction, and say, ‘ How! 
Does this man forbid all good works?”’ But otherswould 
believe, would praise me, and adhere to my doctrine. 
Here then 1 might say also, “ My doctrine concerning 
good works is spiritual, and there is a distinction made, 
namely, Good works for righteousness, and Good works 
for the honor of God. Whoever conceives them necessary 
for righteousness, must fail; but whoever believes them 


260 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


necessary for the honor of God, must succeed. By this 
I intend to show that I have here commenced no new 
discourse, but I have been speaking throughout, in- 
cessantly, concerning good works, though I have been 
speaking of two classes of hearers. 

222. Christ also speaks thus, John 6,51. Heteaches 
concerning the eating of his flesh, and afterwards speaks 
of the distinction among those who hear his doctrine. 
Some he discovers to be fleshly, some spiritual, and he 
‘pronounces judgement in reference to them, v.63, ‘‘ The 
flesh profiteth nothing, the spirit giveth hfe ;”’ besides 
he explains this himself, by adding, ** My words are 
spirit, and they are life.’ And certainly this can mean 
- nothing less than as follows: “I must have spiritual 
hearers to my words; fleshly hearers will not do; they 
are of the flesh, and are not the hearers of my word. 
The flesh profiteth nothing, but it misleads them.”? For 
as the spirit is h¢s word and doctrine, so must flesh also 
be the words and doctrines of flesh. ‘Thus the spirit, 
that is, his word and doctrine, gives life; but the flesh, 
‘that is, the word and doctrine of flesh, profiteth nothing, 
of which I have written abundantly on a different occa- 
sion. 

223. The third offence which I have given in refer- 
ence to this passage, is, that my rude is false, when I 
write, ‘‘ Wherever spirit and flesh are set in con- 
trast to each other in the Scriptures, there flesh never 
signifies the flesh of Christ, but the Old Adam.” O 
here the great Christopher from Zurich pulls down 
the trees, and hurls the hills and the dales together. 
if I understand his querulous, indecent German aright, 
which is truly unpleasant to me, he makes a distinction 
between the Spirit of God and our spirit, which 15 about 


PHE LORD’S SUPPER. 216, — 


as necessary to the subject as the fifth wheel to a wagon, 
except that it enables him to persuade the poor rabble, 
that the great giant from Zurich has given an answer, 
and that there is concealed within him a mass of science, 
though it is vain and groundless. ‘ 

224. But it is of little consequence to us, whether it 
be the Spirit of God or our spirit; my rule stands se- 
cure, that wherever in the Scripture, flesh and spirit 
are brought gn contrast with each other, there the word 


flesh cannot mean the fiesh of Chrést; for his flesh is 


not opposed to spirit, but much rather it is born of the 
Holy Ghost, and besides it is full of the Holy Ghost. 
But since Christ says in this passage, ‘The Spirit quick= 
eneth, the flesh profiteth nothing,” it is abundantly clear 
that he means such flesh as is not spirit, nor possesses 


spirit, but is opposed to spirit. For making alive and 


profiting nothing are as mach opposed to each other as 
life and death, as 1 have explained more fully in my 
former book. | 

225, But as to Zwinglius teaching me afterwards, 
how flesh and spirit accord perfectly with each other, as 
in John 1, 14, «Τῆς Word was made flesh;”’ and 1 
Peter 3, 18, ‘ Christ was put to death in the flesh, bué 
quickened by the spirit ;”’ great thanks to him, gracious 
God! Far who would have beenableto find this, without 
his assistance?. Myrulestands thus: “ Where spirit and 
flesh are contrasted with each other in the Scripture.” 
By this I have confessed sufficiently clear, that spirit and 
flesh are not in every sense opposed to each other. For 
here the question is not, whether flesh and spirit agree 
with each other any where in the Scripture; but this. 
is the question: “ Where flesh and spirit are opposed to 
each other, as occurs in this passage, ‘“ The flesh profit= 


202 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


eth nothing, the Spirit quickeneth,”’ in such passage, ἢ 
say, flesh does not mean the flesh of Christ. Here is 
the point upon which the dauntless hero should give an 
answer. But he flutters over this, and in the mean time 
foolishly prates about something else, teaching us, that 
flesh and spirit in some passages of Scripture are not 
opposed to each other, still all this is answered ; just as 
that question: ‘ Which way does the road lead hence ?”’ 
and this man answers, “1 cut a woodpecker out.”’ Sa- 
tan is the master of gabble, whenever he is unable to 
answer. 

226. I deduce also from the little word mea, that 
᾿ Christ does not here say, “ My flesh profiteth nothing,” 
as he does, however, just above, where he says, ‘‘ My 
flesh is meat indeed.”’? Here he gives me this answer: 
*‘ Just as Christ does not say, ‘ My spirit quickeneth,’ 
though it is his spirit that quickeneth, so he does not say 
here, ‘ My flesh,’ though it is his flesh.”” Distort your- 
self once again, little spirit! but Christ does not speak 
here concerning his own spirit, which he possesses per- 
sonally, but, as the text reads, concerning spirit which 
makes alive, that is, concerning the common spirit which 
is in all the faithful. Although Christ gives this spirit, 
and it is the spirit of Christ, yet it is here a common 
spirit, existing wherever he gives life; for it does not 
only make Christ alive. Thus flesh here must also be 
that common flesh, which is without spirit, and profiteth 
nothing.” 

227. Accordingly Zwinglius has employed here a 
real sophistry and deceptive argument in the little word 
my, which is called the fallacy of figurative language. 
For above, where Christ says, John 6, 55, “ My flesh. 
ἴδ meat indeed,” there the word my signifies his owa 


EO rere ὥὰ «Ὁ. 


τ 


THE LORD’S SUPPER: 263 


personal flesh, which is common tono one. But though 
spirit here is his own spirit, it is not his own personal 
spirit, existing in him only, but the common spirit in all 
to whom he givesit. Hence flesh cannot mean here his 
own flesh, as spirit means his spirit; for his flesh is not 
the common flesh in all. But any one who does not 
know hew to give an answer, must help himself out in 
this way. 

228. Let this be sufficient upon the second principal 
division, by which every ene may see that the Enthusi- 
ast cannot force this expression: ‘‘ The flesh profiteth 
nothing,’ to mean the fiesh of Christ,;—may see how 
this man stands abashed over it, and is altogether unable 
to give an answer. For as to his deferring all examples, 
and keeping silent where J have so abundantly proved, 
how the flesh was profitable even to Abraham, to Sarah, 
to Isaac, and to other saints, in faith, and showed with 
great force from these examples, that the flesh of Christ 
must be vastly more profitable, 1 must regard as good 
in him; it is better he would be silent and rush over the 
difficulty, than to suffocate there, and publicly be obliged 
to submit. He feels sensibly, that it 1s of no advantage 
here to be angry and to abuse. 

229. Then again, as to his not answering the quota- 
tions from the Fathers, but merely saying that Luther 
did not understand them rightly, adding that it were of 
very little consequence to him if they did not coincide with 
kim, all this is admirably done indeed. What answer 
should this exalted genius give upon such patch-work ? 
Well, let him go on thus, and be learned; but my master 
or assistant he shall never be, if God be pleased; 
unless he turn from his abominable doctrines, not 
only on these points, but in all others in which he 


“γα 


νῦν 
᾿ 


96}. TIE LORD’S SUPPER: 
| aa 


_“4y 


“has so egregiously perverted himself and the people. 


May Christ, our Lord, help him and all! Amen. 

230. Let us now attend to Gcolampadius, and hear 
also how he will answer; for I still hope that he doe’ 
not coincide with Zwinglius in all points, but only in refer- 
ence to the Eucharist and to Baptism. May God rescue 
.him out of these errors! Amen. Indeed I have proved 
above, that the figure of Oicolampadius cannot and must 
not be admitted in the Eucharist; for he cannot prove it. 
fn addition to this, it 15 even a perverted, unscientific 
figure, opposed to all the figures in the Scriptures, so 
that any one must conclude, that it is an arbitrary fabs 
rication. ‘This 1 must make clear. 

231. Wherever a trope or word with a new sense 
occurs in the Scripture, there also will be two interpre+ 
tations: one new, besides the first old and foregoing in- 
terpretation, as Said above. As the word vine in the 
Scripture has two interpretations, one old and one new. 


According to the first or primitive interpretation, it means 


the stock or plant in the vineyard; according to the new 
it means Christ, John 15, 5, “Iam the vine.”? Or it 
means a mother, Psalm 128, 3, “ Thy wife shall be as 
a vine ;” or whatever may be of a similar nature, because 
it has a resemblance to the vine in consequence of the fruit, 
as the rhetoricians teach: ‘* Words which are transformed 
in their meaning, are transformed according to the laws 
of resemblance.” 

232. Now the figures in the Scriptures have this 
power: the words express their object according to their 
primitive or original signification, which is an image of 
that object, and according to their new signification, they 
point out the new real object or substance itself, and not 
the object of reference again. As in this expression: “I 


THE LORD’S SUPPER: 265 


am the true vine.”” Tere the word vine has become a 
figurative or new word, which cannot be referred back 
to the original vine, which is merely an image of the 
new, but it expresses in itself the true new vine, which 
is not an image. For Christ is not an image or repre- 
sentation of the vine; but on the contrary, the vine is an 
image or representation of Christ. Again, “ The seed 
is the word of God,”? Luke 5,11. Here the word. seed 
does not signify the graix, which is an image of the 
Gospel; but, as a new word or figure ought to do, it 
signifies the Gospel, the real new seed, itself, which is 
not the image. And so on, all figures in the Scrip- 
tures, express the real, new substance, and not the image 
er representation of this new substance. 

233. But Cicolampadius reverses this, and makes 
such a figure or new word, as refers back, expressing 
_ the image of the new substance, and he says, body should 
mean the sign or the image of body, in the passage, 
“This is my body ;’’ although, wherever he wishes to 
follow the Scripture, he must still more change this word 
body, so as to signify a real new body, of which the 
natural body of Christ would be an image. For the 
Seripture does net thus refer back, and it will not read 
so, if I wish to. refer it back, thus: * Christ is a vine,’’ 
John 15, 5; that is, the segn of a vine. ‘'The Gospel 
is. seed ;”? that is, te representation of seed. “* Christ 
is ἃ lamb,’? John 1, 29; that is, the sign of a lamb. 
“‘ Christ is a rock,’? Matt. 16, 18; that is, the sign of 
a rock. “Christ is our passover,”’ that is, the sign of 
our passover. . “ John is Elias,’? Matt. 11, 14; that is, 
ithe sign of Elias. The sum of all is, that there are no 
such figures in the Scriptures, and not one of them is 
right. Accordingly the figure of Gicolam;adius can be 


266 THE LORD’S SUPPER, 


of no avail, where he says, ““ The bread is my body,” 
that is, the sign of nvy body ; for it is an inverted figure; 
it makes out of the true substance an image or sign, and 
this is not consistent with the character of the holy Scrip- 
ture; consequently it is a mere vision. 

234. But were the text to stand thus: “ Take, eat; 
this is my true bread,”’ we might make an elegant trope, 
and neatly express ourselves thus: ‘* Bread is here a 
new word, which according to its original signification 
means merely bread, which is an emblem of the body of 
Christ; and according to its new signification, it means 
the true new bread itself, which is the body of Christ.” 
But now the text stands thus: “ This is my body ;”” and 
whoever will contend for a figure in this, must according 
to the Scripture say thus: “ This word, bread, accord- 
ing to its original signification, means the natural body 
of Christ, but according to its new or figurative signifi- 
eation, it must mean another new body of Christ, which 
is an emblem of his natural body.” According to the — 
Scripture, this would be the way to give the word pro- 
perly and truly a new signification ; so that the new text 
might stand thus: “ This is my true new body, which 
is not an emblem;”’ just as I say in reference to Christ, 
‘‘ This is our vine,”’ that is, “a new, true vine, of which 
the old vine in the vineyard is an emblem. 

235. Now if any one would here pretend, that we 
find this figure of icolampadius in ordinary expressions; 
as when we say of pictures, “ This is St. Peter,” “ This 
is St. Paul ;” “ This is pope Julius ;” “ This is the em- 
peror Nero,” and so on;—in which expressions, the 
words Peter, Paul, Julius, Nero, are employed instead 
of picture,—I answer first, “ Cicolampadius had not 
undertaken to produce figurative expressions from ordi 


ἐν 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 267 


nary expressions, after which I make no inquiry, but 
from the Scriptures, to which he must adhere, and pur- 
sue the style and composition of the Scripture. But if 
he can show me a single example of his trope in the 
Scripture, he then shall have gained the argument, and 
f will follow him in every particular. But if he pro- 
duces no example, he wil have lost the argument, and 
his trope will be nothing but a mere faney.” 

236. For the Holy Scriptures are consistent in their 
expressions, as God is consistent in his works. Now 
God always causes the representation or emblem to ap- 
pear beforehand, and afterwards follows the reality or 
accomplishment of the emblem. The Old Testament 
proceeds thus, appearing as a type or emblem before, 
and then the New Testament, as-the-reality, follows 
after. Just so with the language of the Scriptures; if 
a figure or a new word is made, the old word, which is 


_ the similitude, is taken, and a new sense is given to it, 
which is the real object itself 


237. For how would it read, if I should say, ‘* The 
Gospel is a New Testament, that is, an emblem of the 
New Testament?” This would be as much as to say, 
**'The Gospel is the Old Testament.” Again, “ Christ 
is the Lamb of God, that is, an image or an emblem of 
the Lamb of God ;” which would be as much as to say, 
“ς Christ is the old Paschal Lamb of Moses.” Precisely 
in this way Cécolampadius produces his retrospective 
trope, where he makes-an old word out of the new word, 
body, and says,. “It should mean, this is the sign of 
my body,” which is as much as to say, ‘ This is bread.”’ 
Now should bread here with reason be the old word, 
and the body the new, and the word, bread, represent 
the body, and not the word, body, represent the bread ? 


Ἢ» 


268 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Thus his trope is reduced to nought, and it cannot be 
maintained by Scripture. 

238. In the second place, it is even untrue that this 
trope of Cicolampadius 3 is to be found in any dialect or 
language in the whole world; and whoever will bring 
me one infalhble example of this, to him I will surrender 
my neck. ‘They may say indeed, that this trope is em- 
ployed in the following expression: “ Here is St. Peter, 
that is, a picture of St. Peter ;᾽ but 1 give the nega- 
tive to it, and they cannot prove it; it is their own false 
conception. For this is an infallible rule in all languages: 
Whenever the httle word ἐδ is employed in any expres- 
sion, undoubtedly the essence of that object is expressed, 
and not its representation. Observe this meanwhile: 
{ take up a wooden or silver rose, and ask, what is this? 
Some body answers me, “It is a rose.” Here I do not 
ask what it signifies or represents, but according to its 
essence or nature, I ask what it is; and so the answer 
tells me what it 7s, and not what it signifies. For it is 
quite a different question, when I say, ‘‘ What does this — 
signify,’ and when I say, ‘‘ What is this.” Is always 
has reference to the nature of ‘the ii so itself, and this 
rule is infallible. 

239. Yes,”? say you, ‘it is indeed not a rose, but 
a piece of wood.”’ I answer, “ It is well; however, it 


38 a rose, though not a vegetating, natural rose in the 


garden; and yet it is essentially a rose of its kind.” 
For there are many kinds of roses, as of silver, gold, 
cloth, paper, stone, wood; still each one for itself is es- 
sentially a rose in its nature, and cannot be a mere rep- 
resentation; yes, how would that be a representation, 
which never had an essence before? That is nothing, 
which represents nothing. But that which represents, 


ee it 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 269 


must have beforehand a nature and a similitude of the 
reality. 

240. Wherefore it is necessary in a wooden rose, to 
distinguish from each other, both the nature and the re- 
presentation ; like a first and second act,—a substantive 
and an active verb. According to its nature, it 15 in re- 
ality a rose, namely, a wooden rose, according to which, 
though the nature remained unchanged, one might say, 
‘‘ This represents or is made after another rose.’’? For 
these are two distinct expressions or propositions: “This 
is a rose,’ and, “ This represents a rose.”? And who- 
ever makes but one proposition out of both, in reality 


takes a hypothetical or categorical proposition, for a 


general proposition; which is absurd. How awkward 
a thing this would be, the learned know perfectly well. 
241. Now as the material elements of a rose may be 


manifold, wooden, silver, golden, &c., and still each one 


in reality for itself is and is called a rose, so also will the 


word rose, so often as it becomes a new word, though 
the letters all remain unchanged, according to its signi- 


fication, as often will the nature of the rose become dif- 
ferent and still different. So that one has no where any 
need of using the figure of Gicolampaduus, or of saying, 
“6 This is the picture of a rose.’? For it is even untrue, 
that whoever says, ‘‘ This is a rose,’’ wishes to say and 
to be understood, that it is the representation of a rose; 
but he wishes to say what itis in its nature. And if he 
wishes to tell further what it signifies or represents, he 
makes two distinct propositions, and says, “ This is a 
rose, and represents a rose.” And every one must ac- 
knowledge, that these two expressions are not of equal 
force, nor spoken concerning the same rose, but each 
one for itself expresses a different thing from the other. 


Ἢ 


270 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


This I know with:certainty, that.all this is as here rep- 
resented, and no one can deny i. 

242. Wherefore Cicolampadius-cannot maintain ‘by 
his figure, that these two expressions, “This is my 
body,” and, “ this is the sign of my body,” are equiva- 
lent in force ; for no dialect or language admits it. Just 
as it is not of equal force, when 1 say concerning a pic- 
ture of St. Paul, “ This is St. Paul,” and, “ This rep- 
resents St. Paul.”’? For the first expression will declare, 
what the picture is, that it is St. Paul, mamely, a-wooden 
St. Paul; a silver St. Paul; a golden St. Paul; a pic- 
tured St. Paul. In short, the little word 7s has reference 
to the nature; no matter what kind of ἃ nature.it.is; and 
St. Paul here has become a new word, not meaning the 
living St. Paul. Therefore if I ask further, ‘“ What 
does it represent ?”’ that moment does it become a differ~ 
ent question, which now has reference not:to the nature, 
but to the representation. ‘So that, since the nature and 
the representation are:not the same thing, so they can- 
not be expressed by the same words:or phrases. Each _ 
must have its own appropriate expression. 

243. Now should CAicolampadiusinsist:on his trope, 
he must prepare two different expressions for the admin- 
istration of the Eucharist: one concerning the nature, 
thus,—‘‘ This is my body ;”’ for there stands an 7s there, 
which must and will have reference to the reality. Now 
‘since not more than one proposition stands in the Eucha- 
rist, having reference to the reality, namely, “ This is 
my body,” it must speak of the essential body of Christ, 
under every supposition, whether that body be of wood 
or of silver. For it contains an 7s, which demands the 
body of Christ, which is there and is called the body of 
Christ, as the genius of common language requires that 


4 


THE LORD’S SUPPER,  ~—s 988 


a Paul be present, if one says of a picture, “ This is 
Paul.””?. And so, G@icolampadius must admit a body of 
Christ to be present in the Eucharist, though he might 
reflect, however, that it was made of bread, wood, clay, 
orstone. The fioure requires a body of Christ, because 
the other proposition does not stand in connection with 
it,—that ἐξ represents, or that it is the sign of my body; 
but thus: ‘This is my body.” 

244. The sum of all is, as 1 have said ef the rose, 
that wherever in any sentence the word rose is to be a 
new word ora trope, two roses must there be understood 
together, both of them having the name rose with strict 
propriety ; one which represents, and one which is rep- 
resented ; and each one of the two roses must actually » 
be, and be called, a rose, though the one in its nature 
may be wooden, the other natural. So too, if the words ἡ 
my body in the language of the Eucharist, are to become 
new words, or a figure, so also must two bodies of Christ 


be present, both of which with propriety receive the same 


name my body ; one, that which represents.; the other, 
that which is represented. So that each one of the twe 
bodies of Christ, in reality and truly is called a body of | 
Christ, and essentially is so, be it of wood, silver, or “— 
bread. 

245. Now if Gicolampadius can prove that ‘bread is 
in reality a body of Christ, and if he may say it is a body 
of Christ composed of bread, which is here a represertta- 
tion of the natural body of Christ, as the wooden rose is 
in reality a rose, and a representation of a natural rose, 
he will have accomplished so ‘much by this reasoning, 
that examples of his trope may be found, and his trope 
be similar to that which occurs in common language con- 
£erning pictures.: “ This.is Peter ;’’  Thisis Paul,” &c.. 


~— 
ἧ: ποτ ον 


272 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Although it would not be a trope according to the style of 
the Scripture. But ifhe is not able, then his trope, foreign 
to the Scripture, amounts to nothing. Now how will he 
make this appear, that bread is, and is called, the body 
of Christ, or that Christ has a body of bread, as the St. 
Paul has a body of wood? Now he must do this, or 
suffer defeat. And should he chance to find the exam- 
ple, what avail would it be, when, at the same time, this 
trope has no force im Scripture? Since then his trope 
has no example either in the Scripture or out of the 
Scripture, contrary indeed to the Scripture and the ge- 
nlus of every language, we may with propriety contend, 
that it is merely a useless whim of fancy. 

246. QOécolampadius has betrayed himself, in a quo- 
tation from Tertullian: ‘ This is the figure of my body,” 
that is, the form of my body, where he regards the ex- 
pression figure or form as a trope. For it is well to 
observe that Gicolampadius has not discovered this fig- 
ure of himself, nor has he adopted it from the Scripture, 
because neither does the Scripture nor any dialect speak 
thus; but he has stumbled here upon the language of 
Tertullian, which has only served to lead him into error. 
But Tertullian does not insist upon a trope here; he only 
gives an exposition or explanation how the bread is the 
body of Christ, namely, that it is the form under which 


™the body of Christ is; and he does not speak of words, 


but of things, when he says, “This is a figure of my 
body, because bread is not a figure of speech in gram- 
mar, but the figure of an object in nature ;”’ and Ter- 
tullian cannot be so dull, as to intend to say, ‘“ Christ 
has made out of the bread a figure in grammar,”’ as would 
follow from the language of Cicolampadius: “ ‘Thus, he 
made bread his body, that is, the figure of his body, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 273 


which is a figure in grammar; because such figure does 
not exist in nature, nor in the language of Scripture, that 
bread can become a figure of Christ’s body.” 

247. Here I imagine, that the trope and imagery 
of C&colampadius, are as successfully refuted, as the 
figure of Zwinglius, and the Tovro of Carlstadt; so 
that they have no text, nor can they have any; and 
thus they sit naked and bare in the Eucharist without a 
text altogether. Now if they have no text, they can 
have no perception or understanding or interpretation. 
If they have no interpretation, they cannot know whether 
they have mere bread and wine or not. For they must 
indeed first of all arrive at a knowledge of what they 
have in the Eucharist. But this they can never arrive 
at, unless they obtain a determinate text and interpreta- 
tion; but they can never obtain these, as we have al- 
ready proved. Consequently, we make this conclusion : 
«The Enthusiasts themselves do not know what they 
have in the Eucharist.” © these fine spirits! O beau- 
tiful Eucharist! With truth is this truly said to be sit- 
ting in darkness, and eating, when one does not know 
what he eats, or where he is sitting. O beloved! for 
God’s sake, give this poor spirit a penny to procure him 
a light. 

248. Not that I would mock the Enthusiasts and 
their God, unless I do it with words. For I am not 
Elias, who dared to mock the most holy prophets of 
Baal, especially because they themselves show, and 
though they sit completely in the dark, yet they have 
seen, that Luther has lost his mind, and has become a 
Saul, and cannot understand that bread is bread, which, 
however, the dogs and the hogs understand. For if 
I wished to mock them, J] would advise them in their 


B74 THE LORD'S SUPPER, 


sorrow and extremity, to follow one of their own disci 
ples, who fell into a controversy with one of ours on the 
subject of the Eucharist, and at last, when his arguments 
were exhausted, he said, ‘‘ Oh my beloved brother, it is. 
truly, very truly said, however, that it stands in the 
Greek, hoc est corpus meus, and not, hos est corpus 
meum.?’ So they might still obtain an invariable text, 
and make figures until they had hit it once,—Hoc est 
tropus meus!!! 

249. But if this is unpleasant, they might well act 
as that clergyman did, who accidentally coming up to 
two other clergymen, found them greatly perplexed on 
this very subject of the Eucharist, about the text hoc 
est corpus meum. One of them said, it must be foc 
est corpus meus ; the other said, it must be hoc est cor- 
pus meum, in order that the words may agree. Now 
when they referred the matter to the third, for his deci- 
sion: ‘ Truly,” says he, “ this text has often perplexed 
me; but I settle the matter in this way,— Whenever ἢ 
come to this text, I always repeat an Avemary instead 
of it.” Now here is a great question: “ Which one of 
these consecrated the elements properly??? This we 
shall pass by for the present. For since our Enthusiasts 
do not consecrate them, and keep sitting still in the dark, 
doubtful, astray, disunited, as to the text, it would be 
well that they, followmg the example of this man, in- 
stead of an uncertain text, repeat an Avemary also in 
its place; or if they would avoid that, unwilling to seem 
either old or new Papists, and if they are exceedingly 
afraid of the name of Mary, of the saints, or the images, 
they might sing instead of this, ‘‘ Christ has risen ;” or, 
‘¢ Christ to heaven hasgone;”’ especially since these hymns. 
and words seem to be opposed to the text in the Eucha~: 


HE LORD’S SUPPER. 275 


rist, and render it so uncertain. For, should not a stone 

8 moved with compassion, that these high, enlightened 
spirits, who on other subjects have as much sunshine in 
their minds, as hair on their heads, on this subject only, 
should sit in the darkness, so that they cannot even see 
a little star! Ὁ 

250. If any one supposes, that I here press the En- 
thusiasts too severely, and scorn them too deeply, I 
would beg him also to consider, that, although I am an 
obscure Christian, yet it causes me vexation not without 
reason, at the evil one, who makes nothing else out of my 
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, than a frivolous trifler, 
and spouts his mockery, as if he were a churl or a drunk- 
ard in the Eucharist. In the first place, because they 
represent Christ and his works and words, so that in the 
Eucharist there is nothing more to be received, than 
mere bread and wine, in remembrance of the death of 
the Lord; so, they would no where be in need of this 
text, This is my body,” &c., and, “This is my 
blood,’’ &c.; and it is entirely a vain, unnecessary, use- 
less text, without which the Eucharist could be admin« 
istered properly and complete. For they have text more 
than enough, if they read thus: “Take, eat; take, 
drink ; this do in remembrance of me.’’ In these words 
they have their Eucharist full and complete. Conse- 
quently Christ must be a real trifler, who just at his end 
becomes so useless a babbler, and lays down so unnec- 
essary a text,—< This is my body,”—“This is my 
blood,’ &c.,—which these lofty spirits can well con- 
strue, to which they are opposed, and would have 
entirely away from the Eucharist. For let them 
tell of what use this text would be, if bread and 
wine serve well enough without this text, te make us 


276 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


‘think of the Lord’s death,—which ought to be the prin= 


ΕΠ ‘< 


cipal and only reason for the Eucharist. | L 

251. In the second place, if bread and wine represent. 
the body and blood of Christ, where was the necessity 
for Christ even for once to teach us this figure? For, 
though it ought not to be asked, why God does any 
thing, yet because he would here appear as a fop, I may 
here ask not unreasonably. Or why is it necessary, if 
I know that bread represents the body of the Lord? 
What assistance is this allegory to our faith, which even 
Satan and the impious can also discover? On the other 
hand, what msk or injury should I sustain, if I never 
knew that bread represents the body of Christ, but that 
bread merely contains bread? Had Christ nothing else 
to teach, than that which is utterly useless? and which 
might have readily been discovered afterwards by us 
without his teaching, and even the devil and his follow- 
ers can do the same? And especially because there is 
no analogy of faith in it. For all the words of Christ 
must contribute to faith and to love, and be like to faith, 
Rom. 12,7. No; he must show his folly, and not only 
burden us with a vain, useless text, but also teach us an 
unnecessary, useless science, which without his teaching, 
and at every table of the godless we could have. 

252. Besides this, if he has taught this science in 
words so obscure, that assuredly the Apostles themselves 
at that time did not understand,—as we read that they 
never or seldom understood his expressions when he 
spoke to them im parables, and he had always to be giv- 
ing them an explanation of these parables, how does he 
happen now to be so sparing in the last most noble werk 
of his love, and gives no explanation to the ignorant, 
illiterate disciples, but suffers them to remain in these 


> 


ον ἐς ait 
A κὰν πλῷ 
5 - 


ὙΠῈ LORD’S SUPPER. OnY 


obscure words, which they could not understand without 
an explanation, in any other sense than that in which 
they read, and yet he is so lideral with his explanations 
in other places? The answer is brief. Christ for once 
before necessity required, has encumbered and stultified 
his disciples with unnecessary and obscure words, with= 
out which they might have completely ‘celebrated the 
Eucharist with him. 

253. in the third place, it is with the most excessrve 
folly that he asserts, “'The bread represents, or is an 
emblem of his body which was given for us, and the cup 
or the wine is an emblem of his blood which was shed 
for us.” Beloved, where is this similitude in bread ‘or 
ina cupof wine? For if there must be a figure, a sym= 
bol, or similitude, where one thing is to represent an- 
other, something similar indeed in both objects must be 
shown, on which the similitude depends. The vine is a 
similitude or figure of Christ, because, as he says him- 
self, John 15, 4, “The branch cannot bear fruit of it 
self, except it abide in the vine.” Again, Elias is a 
figure or image of John, because, as the angel Gabriel 
says, Luke 1, 17, “‘ And he shall go before him in the 
spirit and power of Elias.” The paschal lamb is a si- 
muilitude of Christ, because, as the Acts of the Apostles 
say, [le was slaughtered and offered up for us. And 
so on in all figures and similitudes, there must be some- 
thing, in which the similitude consists, and which main- 
tains a relation to each object. ‘But here in the bread 
and the wine-cup, nothing ts discovered, which is similar 
or equal to the body and blood of Christ. 

254. Now if Christ says, “ This bread is an emblem 
of my body which was given for you; this cup of wine 
is an emblem of my blood hil was shed for yeu,” it 


38. THE LORD’S SUPPER: 

is fully as much as if he would say, “ This bread, hav 
ing no resemblance whatever to my body which is given 
for you, 15, however, an emblem of my body which 15 
given for you.” Precisely as if I should say from St. 
Piaf 2 Cor. 6, 14, 15, “ Belial, who has no resemblance 
at all to Christ, is yet an embtels of Christ.” “ This 
light, which corresponds in no respect with darkness, 
still corresponds very well with darkness.” ~ Any man 
knows perfectly well what kind of people they are who 
talk in this manner, namely, silly, senseless gossips, who 
talk at table about iron birds flying over the sea; 
or about black snow fallmg in summer, exciting 
thereby the laughter of their guests. So silly, so 


‘ignorant a gossip do the Enthusiasts represent Christ to. 


be, in falsely making him say, ““ This bread is the em- 
blem of my body, which is given for you, though there is 
no similitude at all in the bread.” 

255. But should they here pretend, that the simili= 


tude consists in this circumstance, that, as the bread*is > 


eaten and the wine is drunk, so the body of Christ is 
likewise spiritually eaten, and his blood is spiritually 
drunk, beloved, this amounts to nothing. For the En+ 
thusiasts locate their figure, not in these Words, Take, 
ext, or give thanks, but in these words, © This is my 
body, which is given for you ;” wherefore there is no 
inquiry made here for a similitude in taking, eating, 
giving thanks. Here, Tsay, a similittide must be shown 
in the bread, how he was given, Slain, martyred, and 
offered up for us, for the remission of sins, in order that 
it may be a ΠΣ or an emblem of the body of Christ, 
which was given for us for the remission of sins, as the 
words read, or else Christ must be silly in calling the 
bread an emblem, which, however, is no such emblem, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 279 


nor can it be. So too must the cup of wine be shown 
to be an emblem, that, as it would some time be shed for 
us for the remission of sins, so the blood of Christ was 
shed for the remission of sins. 

256. For in this manner Moses introduces his 
similitudes ; he describes how the oxen and the calves 
Should be slaughtered and offered up, and their blood 
shed on the altar, and sprinkled for the remission of sins, 
and for the purification of the people, and their tents, 
and all their vessels, as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows 
us in a very masterly manner, chap. 9, 12, and especially 
the paschal lamb has a very elegant resemblance to the 
body of Christ given for us for the remission of sins, in this 
respect, as it was slain and offered up, its blood shed. 
and sprinkled on the door, as a propitiation to the 
destroyer. This correspondence must be pointed out 
in the bread and wine also, or we must say that he 
is a fool, who says they are equal to the body and blood 
which were given and shed for us, for the forgiveness of 
sins, notwithstanding no such similarity at all is dis- 
covered in them. For if they are to be emblems, some 
similarity must be in them, or it is vain and fictitious for 
one to call them emblems, 

257. Nowif Christ desired to-institute a Eucharist, 
at which his body and blood should not be present, but 
in which there should be emblems of his bod y and blood, 
he might with propriety have left us the old Supper 
of. Moses with the paschal lamb, which, corresponding 
in every circumstance, in every essential property, rep- 
resents, in the most minute similarity, his body which 
was given for us, and his blood which was shed for us, 
for the remission of sins, and it is a figure, a type or 
emblem, as all the world knows full well, Why then 


Se ee oe - ΣΡ στα 
ΡΣ. οὐ. δου χε τ, Ως, 


ZR THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


should he act so silly, as to abolish this elegant institution 
ot the Old Testament, and substitute for it a Eucha- 
vist, which would be altogether insignificant in compari~ 
son to that, either in its application or its essential char-~ 
acter.. 

258. One might say with propriety to this man, that 
the New Testament should be an accomplishment and a 
hight to the Old Testament, but thou pervertest it, so 
that the New Testament is aetually an abrogation, an 
obscuration of the Old. For im that, there is still a 
lamb, a living body, which is offered for the people, and 
which represents the body of Christ far more naturally 
and distinctly than this common bread, which is even a 
dark emblem in comparison to the lamb. And there 15 
the blood of the lamb, whieh far more naturally and 
clearly represents the blood of Christ, than the com- 
mon wine. In a word, this Eucharist would be in 
no. respect equal to that as to its import and similitude.. 
Accordingly, if in the New Testament every thing should 
he more complete thanin the Qld,—even the similitudes,— 
Christ with propriety would have suffered us to retain 
that Supper, or else it is not true, that there are merely 
bread and wine in our Eucharist; for with certainty it 
ought very far to excel the institution of Moses, other- 
wise Christ would not have abrogated that institution: 

259. But here the Enthusiasts will resort to a sub- 
terfuge, and pretend that St. Paul says in his text, 1 
Cor. 11, 24, “ This is my body, which is broken for 
you.’ Here the similitude and import consist in the 
circumstance of breaking ; that, as the bread is broken 
over the table, so was Christ also broken for us on the 
cross. Oh! whoever had not forbidden the saints to 
be honored, and the images to be preserved, might 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 281 


now fall down before the picture of St. Paul, and ex- 
<laim, “Oh thou holy St. Paul! help us poor, miserable, 
abandoned Enthusiasts against this frantic Luther! 
Behold how he chases and drives us, until we can 
do no more: thou only canst help us, if thou wilt 
say Christ’s body was broken!’ But in short, St. 
Paul cannot and will not help them, for the images 
of the saints have ears, but they hear not.—Psalm 
115, 6. 

260. In the first place, that broken here is equivalent 


to crucified, they may assert well enough, indeed, out of 


their own heads; but they are just as little able to prove 
it, as they are able to prove a similarity in bread to the 
body of Christ, and it is mere indefinite gabble—the un- 
known by the unknown. But we demand an indisputa- 
ble proof of this similarity. For since they boast them- 
selves so confident of their opinions, they should render 
these opinions indubitable, er stand confounded. 

261. In the second place, I have said above, that the 
Enthusiasts do not locate this figure or similitude in the 
words, “Take, eat, give thanks,” and so too, not in 
these words, “ Christ took the bread, break, and gave 
to the disciples.” Here they suffer these words, “ Take, 
break, give the bread, disciples, all to remain without 
assigning a figure, merely as they read. Wherefore they 


cannot.even aiterward elevate the term breaking to a 


figure, where Paul says, “‘ This is my body which is 
broken for you ;” for it refers to the same act of break- 
ing, of which he had spoken above: “ He took the bread, 
and break it;”? until they prove incontestably that it re- 
fers to.a different act of breaking. Upon this point we 
say, that there was but a single act of breaking indica- 
ted in both places,.and the crucifixion or suffering of 


282 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Christ cannot be understood by it. For Christ did not 
arrest, crucify, or slay himself, as, however, must have 
been the case, if breaking is equivalent to slaying ; for he 
took the bread himself, and break it with his own hands. 

262. Inthe third place, we insist with the Scriptures, 
that breaking the bread means distributing the bread, 
as I have proved against the Heavenly Prophets. And 
St. Paul says: The bread which we break, is the com- 
munion of the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10,16. And it 
must be spoken in the spirit of malignity, if any one with- 
out the authority of Scripture, would represent breaking 
as equal in force to crueitfying or slaying. For on 
other points, breaking nowhere is equivalent to slay- 
ing or causing death. Hence it is a mere fancy for the 
Enthusiasts to plaster themselves with it. But. an 
undoubted resemblance ought to be shown, which the 
bread has to the body of Christ given for us. And even 
if the breaking were the similitude, which however is not 
the case, yet theprincipal part of the similitudeis still want- 
ing, namely, that the bread is broken for us for the pur- 
pose of redemption, and the wine spilt. For the 
bread and wine should and must be an image of this 
body and blood of Christ, which were given and shed 
for us, besides, that we are hberated thereby, as the 
text reads: “ This is my body and blood, given for you, 
and shed for the remission of sins.” But the act of 
breaking cannot be an emblem like this; but the paschal 
lamb and the old Supper might well be by their union. 

263. Consequently, wine and bread here cannot be 
nor be called the emblems of the body and blood of Christ, 
as the words in the Eucharist speak of them. I will not 
insist on the fact, that John utterly invalidates the ap- 
plication of this word breaking, to the suffering of Christ, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 285 


as he writes, that of Christ not even a bone should be — 
broken, in order that the Scriptures might be ful- 
filled, —* Neither shall ye break a bone thereof.”’ Con- 
sequently, the Scriptures do not allow, that breaking 
can correspond with the suffering and death of Christ. 

264. In the fourth place, suppose I set it down now, 
that in consequence of breaking it, the bread is a simli- 
tude of the crucified body of Christ, as it is not ; but how 
will it correspond with the cup or elass of wine in the 
other part? How will the wine here be a representation 
of the blood of Christ shed for our sins? For the drink- 
ing is an emblem, not of the shed blood of Christ, but of 
spiritual drinking, that is, the drinking of faith, as they 
themselves teach. Here stands, however, the poor cup 
of wine, so naked in pure disgrace, that it cannot stand 
more disgracefully ; for it does not possess in itself a sin- 
gle great similitude, and still it must be and be called an 
emblem of the blood of Christ shed for us. 

265. ‘Where art thou now, St. Paul? that thou 
mightest have said of the cup, asthe hands of Christhavine 
trembled, the contents of the cup were spilt, so we poor 
Enthusiasts can still put off the argument awhile by this 
spilling of the wine, as we now enjoy an hour’s respite 
from the breaking of the bread. Suppose that St. John, 
sitting in the arms of ‘ hrist, jostles his elbow with 
his head, v hen Christ took the cup and gave it to the 
disciples; if only a single drop was spilt, we have 
quite enough for argument, and can say, ‘ See now, the 
wine bears a similarity to the shed blood, in consequence 
of some of it having been «ΡΠ. [If now the spilling did 
not cecur, for our benefit and redemption, and if 
the similitude in this way did not correspond with the 
blood of Christ, as the words in the Eucharist require, yet 


234 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


it served as a liberation of us poor Enthusiasts, as a re- 
lease from this great ignominy and disgrace; for other- 
wise we could show no similarity, though we have dwelt 
so long here, have expatiated so wide and so far, and 
have exclaimed in so many books, that the wine is simi- 
lar to, and a figure of, the blood of Christ shed for us for 
the forgiveness of sins, and now not the smallest particle 
of this mystery appears.” 

266. Behold here what the abusers of Christ our 
Lord gain, and who is most successful in making the 
other appear ridiculous. For their figures cannot be 
either grammatical, or theological, or natural, their 
similitude does not hold good in any respect, for it 
is not to be found in the words, nor in the holy 
Scripture, nor in the nature of this similitude. Were 
it in the words, the word body must become two 
words, and still the very same letters remain, and mean 
a twofold body of Christ, as the word vine becomes two 
words, the same letters still remaining, and a twofold 
vine is meant. Now the bread cannot be, nor mean, the 
body of Christ. Were it in the holy Scripture, the bread 
must have this resemblance in itself, which could visibly 
indicate the body ef Christ, given for us, which is the 
effect of all other similitudes in the Scripture. But were 
it a natural similitude, the bread would have to look like 
the body of Christ, as a wooden rose looks like a natural 
rose. For any thing is a natural emblem, when it repre- 
sents some quality from nature, showing whatit represents, 
without any explanation, as pictures do. For to any one 
that is acquainted witha rose, no oneneed say thata painted 
yoseislikeanatural rose. Butcertainly bread never looks 
like the body of Christ, far less like it as being given for us. 

267. Thus in whatever aspect you view the sophisms 


"in 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 285 


of the Enthusiasts, they are low and nugatory. For we 
have proved above, that they have no indubitable text at 
all. But if we were now willing to accept their text as 
certain, the treachery will not prove substantial, and it 
will soon pass to nought under our hands. For who can 
abide by a text which reads thus: ‘‘ This bread is the em- 
blem of Christ’s body? and stillit cannot be the emblem of 
his body.” Who can say yes and no in the same breath, 
and on the same proposition? They act like the fool, 
who built a water-mill on a mountain; when the mili 
was ready, somebody asked him where he would get the 
water? ‘See there!’ says he, “sure enough I never 
thought of that.’ 

268. So too isit with the Enthusiasts. ‘They never 
make due provisions for the circumstances of their figures 
and emblems. If one would be willing enough now to. 
be gained over by them, and to adopt their similitude,. 
and then require them to show in what respect this em-. 
blem of the bread corresponded with the body of Christ, 
they would have to say, “Sure enough we never thought 
of that. We thought, whenever we named a similitude,. 
that it must stand there. For our genius from the 
beginning intended to be a god, and that whatever he 
said, must be so.’? Behold, this is essentially running off 
with their own words. 

269. Now although this trope of the Enthusiasts is 
here confuted with force, still they are not willing to 
yield nor to be silent; for who can stop the mouth of 
Satan? These devils go not out, without fasting and 
praying ; they must and will prevail awhile. The 
Enthusiasts will tell how similitudes do not usually 
correspond in every particular, and that the bread 
may serve well enough for an emblem in other par=. 


ὡς 7 

286 THE LORD’S SUPPER. ~ 
ticulars, besides that, that the body of Christ is given 
for us, as in taking, eating, &c. This reasoning 
has been sufficiently answered above, where it was 
shown that they themselves have not sought, or located, 
this similitude in the expressions or elements used in the 
sacrament, but in the body which was given for us. Now 
if they find similitudes in other respects, they do not 
concern the Eucharist, and afford no light to their ob- 
security. They must dwell upon this part of the sentence, 
namely, “ This is my body, given for you.” If 
they do not show this, and show it to coincide pre- 
cisely, they stand without a foundation. Let this be 
sufficient concerning the tropes, by which our followers, 
and whoever has a desire to abide by the truth, can 
successfully defend themselves against the sophistry of 
Satan. 

270. Further; C&colampadius bitterly complams 
against me for writing so much about the devil, as Zwin- 
glius also is silly enough to do, and some say that I have 
named the devil seven and seventy times. - This is excel- 
lent, noble enough, very necessary for them to write, be- 
cause they cannot write any thing else. Why do they not 
also count how often I have mentioned the name of God. 
and of Christ, and why do they not perceive that I am 
fighting on the side of Christ against the devil? Yes 
indeed, this would not serve so well the purposes of that 
virulence with which they strive to make the humble 
man suspect that the doctrine of Luther is from the devil, 
This generation of vipers will boast of love, peace, and 
moderation, and at the same time stick as full of poison 
as a salamander. 

271. Well, I have reflected, that I am not contend- 
ing against flesh and blood, as St. Paul teaches, but 


δ 


= ἢ ““.- 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 287 


? 


Against the devil and his adherents, wherefore I do right, 
if I mention the name of devil every other word. What! 
shall I now become so shy of these delicate, high spir- 
ited, profound Enthusiasts, as not to mention the name 
of my enemy? I will quite willingly suffer my writing 
tobe called slanderousand extrav agant,if I can only grasp 
the devil so successfully; for my free, plain-spoken, simple 
manner of writing against the devil ought to be more 
agreeable to me, than their poisonous, insidious daggers, 
which under the guise of friendship and of love, they hurl 
against the upright, as the book of Psalins declare con- 
cerning these vipers. 

272. In the third place, he writes that this text,— 
“This is my body,’’—is not clear, as I pretend, because 
the body of Christ is not visible there. That I do not 
prove this affirmation of mine, as [ adduce no passage of 
Scripture in its defence, showing that the body of Christ 
can be there invisibly, so too it 15 meconsistent in itself, 
because the body of Christ was visibly given for us, and 
the text speaks of this body of Christ which was given 
for us, that it must be invisible. J answer,—For the 
Enthusiasts, I certainly have not proved it, ner can 1 
ever do so; for they will neither read, nor know, nor 
understand, as the Psalms declare, Ps. 58, 5, 6, That 
they have stopped their ears, like the adder, so that 
she cannot hear the voice of the wise charmer. For 
our own adherents, I know, I have rendered this text 
abundantly clear, and have laid down this rule: “In 
the Scripturé, we should allow the words to retain their 


natural force, as they read, according to the style, and 


assign no other signification to them, unless required by 
an evident article of faith.’ This rule stands in my 
book. Still Gicolampadius says that I have given 


7 
“%, a 
“Ὁ 


ῬΑ 


a 


98s YHE LORD’S SUPPER. 4 
wv 


norule. Because, then, these words, “Thisis my body,” 
according to the characterand style of all languages, donot 
mean bread or the sign of body, but the body of Christ, 
so we must let them stand there, and not explain them 
differently, unless the Scriptures require it. 

273. If now we have these words, of undoubted sig- 
nification, acknowledged by ever one, and if no other sig# 
nification can be established, this is having clear, blunt, 
plain words and a determinate text. For no man upon 
earth had ever heard that the word body should mean an 
emblem of body, anditis anew, dark, unacknowledged de- 
finition, in consequence of which it must be proved. But 
the first definition in itself is clear and certain,as every one 
knows. Is it not then a fine thing for Cecolampadius, 
to introduce a new, unacknowledged, dark, uncertain 
definition, and in doing so pretend that the old definition 
must be dark and uncertain? In this way no word in 
the Scripture would remain clear, if license would be 
given to every scribbler to produce a new definition upon 
it, and then say that the ancient definition was dark and 
unfixed. But of the sad consequence resulting from such 
a practice, Gicolampadius furnishes an example, namely; 
the text says, “This is my body which is given for you; 
now it is visibly given for us; consequently his body can- 
not be present invisibly.” But this 1 have sufficiently 
answered above in reviewing the areuments of Zwinglius. 
This is the bailiff again, in the bath and out of the bath, 
without his red hose. 

274. I certamly did not know that CEcolampadius 
was so poor a logician or dialectician, as to take sub- 
stance for quality, and to reason from property to sub- 
stance. In Zwinglius it is no wonder, who is one of those 


self-created doctors, who are in the habit of acting in this 


# 


~ 


; THE LORD’S SUPPER 289 

» = . 

way. In fact, what good can be expected from him who 
wishes to reason, and cannot yet construct his juvenile 
tessonsin logic? 1 am so much grieved at Gicolampadius 
with regard to this circumstance, that I cannot hence- 
forth ascribe any fine sensibility to him. For although 
probably he has not the courage to fathom the useless 
gabble and false glitter of the sophists, still he should 
know the juvenile lessons, that is, the ordinary sys- 
tem of logic, such as the rules of consecuety, the forms of 
syllogisms, the species of arguments, &c. - Itmay be, how- 
ever, that I have so confounded him with the truth,—as | 


believe,—that he cannot well discern what he is saying. 


275. For tell me, who can imagine that any sensible 
man would make the assertion, which Cscolampadius 
does, namely, that this text, ‘‘ This is my body,” is not 
perspicuous, because the body of Christ is not visible in 
the sacrament, and that the words can only be under- 
stood by believers, as he would have Augustine to say. 
Must a text then be unintelligible because the object is 
invisible, and none but the believer be able to compre- 
hend it? What portion then in the Scripture would re- 
main intelligible? Ifevery thing is invisible which faith 
teaches, then this text must be unintelligible: “God cre- 
ated the heavens and the earth,’”’ Gen. 1,1. For God, 
, and his operations in the work of creation, are invisible. 
How then is it clearly understood that nothing but mere 
bread and wine are present in the Eucharist? For it 
any thing more may be there, it is not visible. What 
advantage then does this genius gain by his soph- 
istry, except to bring themselves into disgrace, by such 
loose distinctions, absolutely to prevent any reconcilia- 
tion between ourselves and them, and the establishment 
of their doctrine? 


‘<4 


25 


990° THE LORD’S SUPPER: ie 
ἢ # 


276. But we know that these words, “This is 
my body,’’ are clear and perspicuous. Should a Chris- 
tian or a heathen, a Jew or a Turk, hear them, he would 
have to acknowledge, that these words were spoken con- 
cerning the body of Christ which 15 inthe bread. How 
otherwise could the heathens and the Jews deride us; 
saying that the Christians eat their God, if they did 
not clearly and distinctly understand this text? But 
the circumstance which is alleged, of the believer ems 
bracing the doctrine, and the unbeliever rejecting it, 
is not owing to any obscurity or perspicuity in the words; 
but to the hearts of those who hear the text. 

277. Yet the poets can make the most delicate dis- 
tinctions in the most perspicuous terms, not only in re# 
ference to invisible things, but things absolutely ideal. 
How many a person is betrayed by liars with very beau= 
tiful words, the meaning of which he understands with 
his whole heart ?. How are the people now perverted 
by the Enthusiasts, speaking of things perfectly vision- 
ary, not to say invisible? ? For this very reason, because 
the words are fully and clearly understood, Indeed those 
words, by which the people are betrayed, and which are 

perfectly visionary, are Sometimes more perspicuous and 
clear, than those which are spoken in reference to truth. 
For if the meaning of the words were not clearly and 
fully understood, the people would remain undeceived. 
Bat, as observed already, Gicol ampadius and this genius 
are so deficient in the common principles of juv enile rea= 
soning, that from a difficulty or obseurity of conception 
in the subject itself, they infer an obscurity of significa= 
tion in the words. This 15 to abstract badly, indeed, to 
be ignorant of the third part of logic. 

278. Itis the very same sort of ingenuity, for him to 


att: ab HE LORD’S SUPPER. = 29% 


“=. εἶ 
a - 


Μ ΕΝ Ἂ Ἢ - ‘ 
i pretend, that, because the Eucharist is a sacrament, the 


PONS ae, ae ee 


words must be understood in a sacramental sense: “ This 


ismy body,” that is, ““ This isan emblem of my body.”’ 
For what reason must we have this sophistry? I wil- 
lingly, aye heartily admit, that the Eucharist is a sacra- 
ment, even if it were not called sointhe Scripture; but how 
does it thence follow, that the words employed in its ad- 
ministration must be sacramental, tropical, or, as they say, 


figurative? Is not this a beautiful consequence or infer- 


ence! Hereisasacrament; therefore the wordsemployed 
in it, must be figurative! Beloved, why must not the other 
words also be understood in a figurative sense, and why 
should the trope be confined to the word 7s or body orly ? 

279. Or whereis there a rule in this instance to teach 
us which words must, and which must not, be understood 
in a figurative sense? For upon this principle, f will re- 


duce the words, ‘‘ Take, eat, do this in remembrance οἵ 


me,” to a figure also, and say, “Take”? means hear ; 
“eat”? means believe ; “do this’? means think in your 
heart ; ‘*remembrance” means a crucifix, or any other 
sign of thought. 'The reasons would be these: “ Here is 
a sacrament ; therefore the words employed in it must be 
understood in a sacramental, or figurative sense; for I 


know of no reason why these words, as well as those, 


must not be taken in a figurative sense.”” In this way 
God himself could not institute.a sacrament; for how 
could he speak of sacraments, if we must take all his 
words in a different sense from their original import ? 
if he speak with simplicity concerning it, as his words 
would literally imply, then it would be no sacrament, 
for the words are not tropical or figurative. If he speak 
in figurative language, then no one would know what he 
says. All this is pure foolishness, 


‘Same 


ῷ 
5) THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


280. When Moses instituted the passover, although 
it was an emblem, a figure of Christ, he used not one 
figurative word, but precise, clear, simple words, such as 
were current in ordinary speech ; and all the emblems of 
the Old Testament are expressed in distinct, simple, clear 
words, and there is not one in all the book, which is 
expressed by figurative words. So that we may reverse 
the rule of Cicolampadius with propriety, and say = 
“One can speak of no sacrament or emblem, without 
using plain and simple words.” 

281. Who would understand it otherwise when 
Moses says, Exod. 12,3, Ye shall take a lamb of the 
Jirst year and eat, &c., if Moses did not thus express in 
simple words a natural lamb, and the natural mode of 
eating ? but must his meaning be, Ye shall take the sign 
of alamb a year old, and eat tt spiritually? Thus, too, 
who would understand John, where he says, John 1, 26, 
“T baptize with water,” if he did not speak in simple 
words of natural water and baptism, or if his meaning 
were, “I baptize with the emblem of water?” Oh! 
what must 1 say? If Gicolampadius does not write all 
this out of pure malignity, as I conjecture, for a learned 
man in all my days I have never heard so frivolous, 
puerile, thoughtless a man. Whatever, however, he 
wishes to say in his cause, turns all directly against him« 
self, 

282. But 1 fear that the devil has some sinis~ 
ter design in this, (for who among us is secure against 
the devil,) namely, because he knows that Christ is called 
a sacrament in the Scripture, as 1 Tim. 3, he would hence 
infer that the words must be figurative, when we say, 
“ Christ is God and man.”” For he must have something 
in his mind, or else he would not act so strangely. In 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 293 


_a word, (Ecolampadius is confounded here for once, in the 
fifst principles of logic, which teach us to divide judi- 
ciously, that is, to speak distinctively. For asacrament 
or the history of it, and the words which one speaks con- 
cerning it, are two things. The sacrament may well 
enough be a type or emblem of something else, but the 


words in their simplicity can signify nothing else than ᾿ 


that which they name. As the paschal lamb of Moses 


does certainly prefigure and typify Christ ; but the words 
or terms, in which Moses speaks of the paschal lamb, 


express with perfect simplicity that paschal lamb, and 
nothing else. Again; circumcision does certainly pre- 
figure destruction of the Old Adam; but the terms in 
which Moses speaks of circumcision, are intended only 
to instruct us in this physical circumcision. So baptism 
does indicate the drowning of sins, but the words employ- 
ed give instructions respecting the application of water. 

283. So too the sacrament of the Eucharist, may 
well enough prefigure or typify something, namely, the 
union of Christians in the spiritual body of Christ, 
through one spirit, faith, love, and cross. But the 
words concerning this sacrament should and must ex- 
press, with literal simplicity, what they name. But here 
friend CEcolampadius blindly strikes upon one of Zwin- 
glius’ lloéses, and stumbles about in the dark, and 
makes out of a figure in nature, a figure of speech, in 
this manner: ‘ The object spoken of is figurative, there- 
fore the words eoncerning the figurative object, are 
themselves figurative.’ This proves to me that he 
must be a simple, thoughtless old father, who has inno- 
cently fallen into these difficulties, and would gladly haye 
remained out of them. 

284. Because then I believe, that he does this through 


ἌΝ". THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


pure simplicity, I will excuse him this time, as he troubles 
himself a great deal about the text, Gen. 17, 2, saying 
that circumcision is a covenant, while at the same time it 1s 
tobe a typeofthe covenant. For my Genesisdoesnotsay 
that creumcision isa covenant anda type, as I cansoabund- 
antly prove, that rt would bring war upon Satan. But 
since it 1s no advantage to the matter in hand, were he 
even correct in his position, I let it pass; for still 
it would not yet be proved, that on this account in the 
Eucharist, body must be the sign of body. Even for 
this I will excuse him,—for making a spiritual rock out 
of the natura! in the declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 4: 
Exod. 2, 11, “¢ That rock was Christ,”’ seeing that here 
also he speaks from his own imagination, and proves 
nothing, and if he could prove it to-morrow, still it 


would not follow, that body here must be the type of 


body. So too with the passage in Exod. 12, “It is the 
Lord’s passover,”’? for enough has already been said 
concerning this expression, and concerning his tropes. 
We come now to the principal point, how the Scripture 
can be opposed to our interpretation, and probably here 
their sophisms will appear. 

285. The Scripture,” says he, “ forcibly declares 
that the body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist.” 
What passage? ‘Where Christ declares, ‘Ye have 
the poor always with you, but me ye have not always,’ 
Matt. 26,11. Again, Christ does not wish to be sought 
for here and there, Matt. 24, 26. Now, because fo be 
present, and not to be present are opposed to each other, 
there must be merely bread in the Eucharist.”” On these 
expressions we have already said enough. But I had 
demanded in my second book, that they should not say 
to us, these passages are opposed to each other ; for long 


Ψ THE LORD’S SUPPER. 295 


avo we had heard this from them, and we know per- 
fectly well that they say so, but they should prove 
it. As to proof, Gicolampadius is as silent as Zwinghius ; 
consequently what they say amounts to nothing. For 
these expressions can both be true, that Christ can be 
present, in a different and still different form; he has 
more ways than one to be present, as said above. 

286. When I said in reference to the right hand of 
God, that the body of Christ must be wherever God is, 
OLcolampadius also, just like Awinelius, infers, that 
Christ cannot have a real body ; and on this he spins the 
same yarn as Zwinglius, namely, that the body of Christ 
must be as large as heaven and earth, and still uncircum- 
scribed. This inference he ought to prove, but he 15 
silent again. In a word, the genius will not answer on 
the requisite pomt. We give the negative to it, that the 
body of Christ must therefore be as largeas the heavens 
and the earth. God himself, though he is every where, 
yet he has not such physical dimensiens. And although 
I have said a great deal above concerning this, I must stil! 
add a few words in reply to Gcolampadius. Since God 
can do more than we can understand, we must not say in- 
deed, that the two expressions are opposed to each other— 
the body of Christ in heaven and in the bread,—simply 
according to our mode of thinking and to our inference, 
because they are both the word of God, but by the Scrip- 
ture must it be proved that they are opposed to each other. 
So leng as this is not done, faith says, God can very easily 
keep the body of Christ in heaven in one way, and in the 
bread in another way. For if there be one way on the 
one hand, and another way on the other, they are not 
indeed opposed to each other. : 

287. Just as it is not a contradiction, that Christ 


296 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


was with his disciples immediately after his resurrection, 
Luke 24, 36, 44, and still was not with them, as he says 
himself, ‘‘ These were aps pers which I spake unto you, 
while I was yet with γου. Here we find with you and 
not with you, though there is no contradiction. For the 
first principles of logic teach, that contradictions must 
be to the sume points, according to the same, about the 
same. That is, these mystics ought to be sent to school, 
which they need very much. 

288. I must, however, present a gross similitude : 
Behold the sun shining in a great sea or pool, where 
there must naturally be not more than one image of the 
sun in the water, because it is only one sun. How then 
does it happen, that when a hundred or two hun- 
dred stand at the sea, each one will have an image of 
the sun for himself at his own place, and no one in the 
place of another ; and if one of them go along the water, 
the image of the sun goes along with him, and it 15 in 
all places wherever he goes; and if a thousand eyes look 
into the water, each one will have an image before him, 
and not that before another person. 

289. Well, this is a created object, and it can after 
a certain manner be in all places of the sea. Beloved, 
who will charge us with falsehood, for saying that God 
knows, and is able to employ, far more than one way in 
which the body of Christ may be every where as he wishes, 
and wherever he wishes? Here, here I say, one must first 
answer and prove, that the power of God is not able to do 
this. Ifwedonot prove this, it is all perfectly vain for us 
to pretend that there is a contradiction in the body of 
Christ being in heaven and in the Eucharist, as we cannot 
be certain of this contradiction, and still the known words 
of God stand there,—* This 15 my body.” 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. | 297 


290. But these wise spirits will not listen to this ; in- 
deed they rather laugh at such similitudes. Accord- 
ingly I speak with my friends thus: “ Let them laugh 
on, taking substance for property, flesh for divinity, 
and the contrary; and through a total ignorance of 
logic, disputing with the utmost extravagance; it 1s 
enough for us that they prove nothing. I will present 
one more similitude. Were a pillar standing on its 


_ pedestal, and were many thousand eyes around it, and 


they would all turn towards that pillar, each individual 
eye would embrace the entire pillar within its vision, and 
one eye would not incommode the other, the whole pil- 
lar too would be in the observation of each particular 
eye, and in front of each eye, as though they were all 
one eye and one vision, for no one of them would see 
less or more of the pillar than the others. Many more 
such comparisons could we show, especially from the 
mathematics. But because such phenomena are of ordi- 
nary occurrence with us, no one regards them as won- 
derful. Consequently it would be a poor exercise of 
reason to wonder, that a single body ean be at various 
places at the same time, because it is not seen. 

291. But it would be a great, incredible wonder, 
if there were no eyes, and we had the four senses only, 
as of feeling, smelling, tasting, hearing, not being able 
to perceive things at a distance, but only near at hand, 
and some one should describe how God could construct 
an organ, namely, an eye, which in a twinkling could 


perceive objects at the distance of eight, nine or ten 


miles. At this a blind man from his birth would be as- 
tonished, and say, “ Ah! friend, how is that possible ? 
My hand cannot feel an object at an ell’s distance, my 
tongue cannot taste any thing the breadth of a finger, 


Sea 


«ς 


ss 


————-— 


298 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


my nose. perceives not a ‘fragrance a are off, my ear. 
hears far indeed, if it hears the breadth of a street, and 
thou tellest me of an organ which can perceive at a dis= 


tance of ten miles!” a 


292. But we whoare able to see that distance, regard 
it no longer as wonderful, for we can see much farther with 
the eyes, namely, to the sun and the stars; yes indeed, 
from the east to the west. Now this eye is still a ma= 
terial, fleshly, mortal thing, and besides the eye of one 
can embrace one half of the world in a glance, and be at 
all parts of the world with its power of vision. — Why 
do we wish then to span and to Jimit the power of God, 
as if he could effecé no more with the body of Christ, 
than he does with our mortal eyes, if our eyes are still 
far more insignificant in comparison to the might and the 
works of God, than the feeling and taste of the blind are 
in comparison to our sight? 

293. Because, then, the clear, perspicuous words of 
God stand thus: “ This is pay body,” and because nei- 
ther in the Scripture nor in any language, has it ever 
been heard that the words my bedy are spoken 
or understood otherwise than they read; and divine 
power being unknown to us; besides, since it is no- 
where in opposition to the Scripture; since in the 
works of nature there are numerous similitudes, the 
Enthusiasts too having been detected in so many 
false assertions and groundless principles, we should 
with propriety believe God rather than our own im- 
aginations. If the Enthusiasts in one particular have 
been found to be notoriously false, God has abund- 
antly admonished us not to believe them, but to adhere 
to His words. For the Holy Ghost speaks not falsely, 
neither does he fail or doubt. Now by the grace of 


ΟΕ were uncertain of ΤᾺΥ intérpretation, and sida 


μα won a ἢ ᾧ 299 


on dlisidas every point. ‘ie a thie othe abe a 
covered them in doubt and uncertainty at least ; so at 


‘disposed to yield to them, I could not do so, because 1 
see here either falsehoods or doubts, and not one sub- 
stantial or certain principle. 

294. The fact which I have demonstrated, that two 
bodies can be at the same time in one place, as Christ came 
through | the closed door, which is quite as wonderful as for 


one body ἢ to be in two places, he says is nothing. For 


there are many other ways by which Christ gout pass 
through the closed door ; namely, as he says, by the ex- 
treme tenuity of his body he could pass through, so that 
two bodies had no need of being in the same place. If 1 
ἸΟῪ ask, “ what these methods are, and how this tenuity 


entered 2”? Here silence is the best answer. “The oné- 


method, I believe, is towards the church,” as Cicolam= 
padius, when he should answer, must go to preaching ; 
‘Cand the other is a bad memory,” so that he has for- 
gotten afterwards to reply. 

295. ‘This is the manner in which this my stic acts: 
he mutters a word or two, so that no one may know what 
he says, and then calls this an answer. If he can here 
discover the tenuity of the body of Christ; so that Christ 
could pass through the door, two bodies still not being 
in the same place, beloved, why then can he not also dis: 
cover such a tenuity that he can at the same time be in 
the bread, and is not obliged to come from heaven, like 
a stone from the roof? But they shall not steal away 
from me in this manner with their tenutty ; ; the body of 
Christ was the very same body, the door also closed, 
and Christ did not pass between the crevices or the nail 


AN 


300 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


holes. He had bones andl flesh, as he himself confesses, 


Luke 24, 39. 


- 296. Uponthe manifestation’ in which C oe appeared 


_ to St. Stephen, Acts 7, 55, and to other saints, and the 


voice of the Father sounding out of the clouds, Matt. 17, 
Oy»—examples which I introduced to prove that Christ 
is not obliged to be in one particular point in heaven,— 


he displays his wit ingeniously, however, and says, 
“Try this; one body in two places!) What kind of 


reasoning is this for a learned man?” I confess my 
fault, for these examples do not also prove that the 
wolf willingly eats the sheep, or whatever of a similar 
kind he may introduce. J adduced these examples to 
show that Christ is near, and not in heaven in one 
place. And yet he explains it as he pleases, and still 
doubts whether St. Stephen did see Christ bodily or 
spiritually, and contends that ‘‘ Christ was seen as a 
phantom, and not Christ himself.”’ And this is all true, 
‘simply because Gicolampadius says it from his own head, 
and these explicit words of the Scripture must yield to 
his imaginings. ‘This is all an answer to Luther’s 
book. ΠῚ had not done this, people would have required 
me to introduce Scripture,’ 

297. But this is not incorrect, and certainly better 
than Zwinghus has said concerning the passage, Jobn 
3, 13, ‘* The Son of man which is in heaven,”’ in reference 
to which Cicolampadius acknowledges, that it is rightly 
said on account of the person, “God is born ef Mary, and 
has descended from heaven,”’ except that he refers me to 
the disgraceful exegesis of Zwinghius, in which the 4/do06- 
sts teaches us, among other vain sophistries, to understand 
flesh instead of divinity ; and the best thing in it is, that 
people may know how learned Zwingliusis in all kinds of 


ys aS 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 204d 


scierice. The subject indeed he touches little enough, 
being prevented by his skill in science 

298. Besides this, Cicolampadius on this passage 
argues to such extent as to place Christ, in opposition 
to himself and to all the Scripture, according to his di- 
vinity in heaven, and according to his humanity only 
uponearth. They do not view my principles correctly, 
and besides they do not understand their own words. 
If Christ is one person in his divinity and humanity, 
the humanity must be at the same time on earth and 
in heaven, as I have already proved in my argument 
against Zwinglius. For to be one person in God and 
with God, is far more exalted than to be in heaven. 
Neither is it true, that Christ according to his divinity 
was In heaven at that time. Where was he according 
to his divinity when he became man in his mother’s 
womb? Was he net personally and essentially, accord- 
ing te his divinity also, in his mother’s womb and upon 
earth? This, however, I have discussed abundantly in 
my second book. But this genius is satisfied to view and 
to consider every thing wrong, which one may hear or 
say. 

239. Wherefore his comparison is perfectly ineff= 
cient, in which he shows, that if ene should come down 
from ἃ mountain, and settle himself in the vale, a person 
might say, ‘‘no one ascends up there, except this one 
who comes down.” For the divinity descends not fron 
heaven, as that man from the mountain, but he is in hea- 
ven and remains in heaven, but he 15 also at the same 
time upon earth and remains upon earth. We cannot 
speak thus, however, concerning the one who has settled 
in the vale: ‘ Heis upon the mountain, though he still re- 
mains below,’ as Christ says concerning himself, “ The 

26 


302 THE LORD’s SUPPER. 

Son of man who is in heaven.” What need is there 
io multiply words? If the kingdom of heaven is upon 
earth, the angels are at the same time in heaven and upon 
earth ; Christians are at the same time in the kingdom of 
(rod and upon earth, even if we understand by the expres 
sion upon earth, as they speak of it mathematically or” 
locally. The word of God indeed is upon earth, so the 
Spirit was given upon earth ; and Christ being king upon 
earth, his kingdom alsa must be upon earth, extending 
over the world,—Ps. 2, 6, “ Ife shall execute judgment 
and justice in the earth;’’ also, Jer. 23, 5; 33, 15. 
Ah they speak childishly and ignorantly of heaven, as- 
signing Christ a particular spot in heaven, as the stork 
makes a nest upon a tree; and they themselves know 
not what and how they speak. 

300. After this he contends that Christ is not con 
fined to physical points of space, nor is he to be found 
here and there, but only felt in the soul. Here they are 
‘ushing along blindly again, and do not see what I am 
writing agaist them. In a word, Whe confines Christ 
toa particular spot? Do net the Enthusiasts themselves 
thus write of him, who locate Christ in heaven at a par 
ticular spot, and persuade us to say, See here, see there 
is Christ, Matt. 24, 26? And how do they act, when 
they direct the people to the Gospel and to their neigh= 
hors? Are not their neighbors and the Gospel at par- 
ticular places on the earth? Is not Christ there then in 
the believer? Tle is spiritually there, they say. What 
does spiritually mean? Does it mean physically, or 
really? Precisely as if we said that he is physically or 
visibly in the Eucharist. Are not Christianity and the 
kingdom of God upon earth coextensive with the worl, 
as the prophets declare? Where are they themselves, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER, 303 


who wish to be the most eminent in the kingdom of 
Christ? If the kingdom of Christ is upon earth, it is at 
various places. This I have maintained against the 
Heavenly Prophets. It grieves them most deeply, that 
I am always applauding this book, as being unconfuted 
by them; and still it is unconfuted by them, and it will 
remain unconfuted. ΤῸ abuse and to exclaim is not to 
confute. 

301. Here again his juvenile logic fails our genius ; 
so that they do not distinguish these words, fo be here, 
and to be there. For Christ himself clearly explains 


concerning what he speaks in these words, and how they . 


should be understood, where he says previously, The 
aingdom of heaven cometh not with outward forms 
and gestures, nor can it be said, “see here tt ts,”’ ev 
“see there,” for the kingdom of God ts within yeu. 
What is wanting to these perspicuous words, except that 
no Enthusiast wishes to observe them? ‘ The kingdom 
of Godisin ycu.”? Whoare these persons, designated by 
you? Are they not upon earth, to speak physically as 
they speak of them, therefore they must undoubtedly be 
at various places. 

392. Accordingly these words here and there must 
be understood in two ways, loco et more loci; that is, 
the locality and the nature of the locality. In the first 
point of view, they must be understood essentially or 
objectively, that, to be here and there, is for the object 
to be discoverable and present. For they must allow 
God indeed to be here and there, and in all places, and 
allow him to be sought and adored here and there and 
every where ; of this I am well assured. In the second 
point of view, more locz, in the ordinary manner, that 
is, the object does not remain and dwell immovably at 


ω. 


.} 


908 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


the same place where it is. As Paul says, 2.Cor. 10, 
3, “’Phough we walk in the flesh, we do not war after 
the flesh.’* What else does this mean, but that we are 
in the flesh, and not in the flesh? If we are in the flesh, 
we are certainly at vartous places, unless it woul not be 
allowed that flesh 1s Aere and there. But we strive not 
alter the flesh, that is, our mode of being and of acting 
does not proceed as it is usual to proceed in the flesh. — 

303. Thus, f might say, we are upon the earth and 
not upon the earth; that is, we live upon the earth, but 
we live notin an earthly manner. Avain, we are in the 
world and not in the world; that is, we live in the world 
it is true, but still we do not live im a worldly manner. 
As Christ, Luke 24, 44, sits and lives with the disciples, 
after his resurrection, and yet he acknowledges that he is 
neither with them, nor living with them. ‘“‘‘Fhese are the 
words,”’ says he, ‘‘ which I spake unto you, while I was 
yet with you.” What else can this expression with you, 
mean, but in your way of living, or as ye now live? 
Personally and essentially he was present at the moment 
he spoke, and suffered himself to be touched. 

304. Take an example. A traveller may come to 
Wittemberg and say, “I am at Wittemburg and I am 
not at Wittemburg.” How so? ‘Thus: physically 
and essentiatly [am here ; but [ am not here in the man- 
ner of the Wittemburgians, that is, ina Wittemburgian 
manner. For Ε have no city privileges here. Neither 
do I foster and support the rights and possessions of the 
Wittemburgians.” Thus St. Paul writes also, Phil. 3, 
20, that our πολίτευμα, that is, our civil polity or civil 
mode of living, ts not here but in heaven. Since Christ 
says, “ The kingdom of heaven cometh not with observa- 
tion,” most evidently he acknowledges, that the kingdom 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 305 


of heaven comes to us upon earth, as he says, “‘ Repent 
ye; the kingdom of heaven is come nigh unto you,” Luke 
17, 20; 10,95; Matt.3,2. But it does not come in the 
manner 1n aie the kingdoms of the world come ; for it 
does not subsist and live in a worldly or human manner, 
as 1 have said. Only let this genus go to school, and 
take his first lessons out of Petrus Hispanus; this would 
be highly necessary for him. 

05. But here for once be succumbs to Luther, 
when he introduces the expression fren John 4, 24, 
“(God is a Spirit: and they that worship him, must 
worship him in spirit and in truth.” Here now you 
have a definite answer, that the body of Christ is 
not at various places, and so not in the administration of 
the Eucharist. If the genius only would answer, he 
would indeed accomplish a fine thing ; but where he 
passes over in silence, there he is inimical. Well, se 
heaven is spirit; for Christ is to be worshipped in spirit, 
that is,in heaven. But how is it possible for him to be 
at a certain point in heaven? [5 spirit also equivalent 
io particular place? Why not? If our genius says 
it is, it must certainly be so. But how did the blind 
man act, John 9, 59, who adored Christ upon earth? 
He certainly committed an error, and Christ was charge- 
able with folly, in receiving that adoration, or else spirit is 
an expression equivalent to being upon earth. Beloved, 
you must not laugh,—the genzus might be incensed, for 
he is in earnest. 

206. But this is still τ τ speaks of wor- 
shippers, who shall not worship him in Jerusalem nor 
upon.a mountain, John 4, 24, as the woman says to him, 
John 4, 20, “Our fathers worshipped upon this moun- 
tain, and thou sayest we must worship at Jerusalem.” 


9.06 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


‘These words also have reference to worshippers; for the 
woman did not say that God is not on the mountain, nor 
did Christ say God was not at Jerusalem, or upon the 
mountain; but this genzus teaches us that these words 
have reference to God, that he is not at vartous places, 
and that they are not to be understood concerning wor- 
shippers. 

307. Beloved, what do you think that God mean: 
ty allowing these Enthusiasts to display such foo! 
ishness in the Scripture? Certainly he means noth- 
ing more than if he would say, ‘¢ Beloved child, there 
shall be no failure in me; I will certainly do enough for 
thee, and not permit the Enthusiasts to treat of subjects 
in the Scripture, except in so low, awkward, and friyo- 
ious a manner, that rf any one sheule suffer himself to be 
roisled, he would have no excuse,as he would have, had he 
not been sufficiently warned and protected by me. Vo!- 
untarily will he be lost, who follows or believes these 
spirits, because he cannot ὁ 50 much, as merely to look 
and see what foolishness they utter, but snatches it all up, 
as they say, like a filthy beast.” 

308. But we believe that to worship im spirit, is to 
worship In a spiritual manner, be Christ in heaven, upon 
earth, in the Eucharist, or wherever he wishes; for 
Christ contrasts this spiritual worship with mere bodily 
worship, which the Jews and also our hypocrites so 
confine to place and time, that it must be in an external! 
manner, as the place and time appointed occur, as 
if prayer had its reality, power, life, and all vir- 
tue from the place or time, as they teach that the 
obedience is the chief part in these prayers, although 
they probably do not pray for any thing, or know 
what they demand. Behold, this is what Christ calls 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 307 


praying in Jerusalem, and in places, but not in spirit and 
in truth. 

309. I hope now a child can comprehend how 
forcibly this passage maintains, that the body of Christ 
may not be in the bread, and that these words, ‘ This 
is my body,’’ must be understood differently from what 
they read. Beloved, if they wish te sustaia their point, 
and to confute us, they must certainly attempt it in 

some other way ; for in this w ay they will drive us still 
Αἰτέ δε from them, and we shall be compelled to say, 

that they certainly do not lay the subject to heart, or else 
they are employing knavish arlilices, because they build 
‘so confidently on this uncertain, false, loose foundation. 

619. ‘Thus Gccolampadius aiso stands motionless on 
this most essential point, he cannot prove that Christ 
is in heaven only at a certain point, and he will never 
find an argument, how the two Poe be are opposed 
to each other: “ Christ in heaven.and his body at the 
same time in the Eucharist,’ upon which I have 
ansisted in my little book. They cannot make it 
appear; this is impossible, and they feel it quite sensi- 
bly. Hor all they boast about teaches us no more than 
that Christ has ascended io heaven, a truth which no 
one required to know. But how it happens that there- 
fore the body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist, 
according to the declaration ef the words, “‘ This is my 
body,’’ he finds silence most eifectua! to show, fluttering, 
skipping, or contradicting himself, and catching himself 
in his own words, as we have seen. 

921. And why is it necessary fer me to stir up all 
the dregs of this Enthusiast. I might commit sin in 
doing so, because I would be robbing myself and my 
reader of time in this foul work. For though we should 


ν 


308 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


cite all the Scripturesin every passage upon these points, 
still we should have accomplished nothing more than 
has already appeared ; we would only give this Enthu- 
slast more space for his unnecessary verbosity, and false 
interpretation of the Scripture, in doing which he forgets 
the main subject, and only shows his useless science. 

312, For I have said, I say still, and shall ever 
maintain, that the foundation of their doctrine rests upon 
the assumption, that the body of Christ has not more 
than one way to exist, like meal in a bag or gold in 
a purse, that is, locally. his assumption they must 
prove to us from the Scripture; what need is there 
of writing numerous books. Let them show these ar- 
guments to you, and then without reluctance admit that 
they have won; for believe me, if they could have done 
it, they would not have kept silent so long. Because 
then they are so mute on this point, and are beyond 
measure dewnright good monks, with ood reason de 
they preserve this silence where they cought to give an 
answer ; and since in al] the numerous books which they 
have issued, not in a single syllable have they answered 
this most essential inquiry, it may easily be perceived why 
they rail, rant, bluster, and boast in this manner, as if 
the matter were evident, namely, the devil dreads the 
light, and wishes to put us to silence by blustering. 

919. Now, J say, because from this ignorant, blus- 
tering spirit no one can obtain a single particle of this 
necessary proof, I will therefore permit Cicelampadius 
also to go on here, and for the last thing only examine 
this passage, “The flesh profiteth nothing.” For as 
‘to what he argues so wildly about the external words, 
‘may be exposed at some time, when I shall write con- 
cerning Baptism,—which may God grant ! 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 309 


‘314. Well, from the circumstances of this passage, 
(Ecolampadius wishes to prove, John 6, 53, that flesh 
here should be understood as referring to the flesh of 
Christ, and he does nothing more than give a comparison 
of a king in a torn robe, which citizens were bound to 
kiss and would not, but were greatly offended about it. 
This he calls an answer to me, and a rampart to his iron 
wall. Behold here this fluttering spirit again ; he prom- 
ised to deduce his interpretation from the circumstan- 
ces of the text, and givesa eemparison of the king. What 
do we inquire in referenee to this comparison? Let it be 
ecod, and effect whatever it would effect ; but how shall 
we know that it is appropriate here? We say it is not, 
and he must prove that it is. But this is not necessary. 
It is quite sufficient, gracious Lord, if we say so; there 
it stands, and so I have my answer. 

345. After this, he gets along thus: “ Εἰ is certain 
that the Jews murmured on account of his flesh, eonse- 
quently he must have made his reply concerning his own 
flesh and concerning no other.’ Is not this an ad- 
mirable inference, a most indubitable consequence? The 
Jews murmured about his flesh, therefore Christ must have 
spoken about hisown flesh. Thisis ealleda proof fromthe 
circumstances of the text! Beloved, why might not any 
one in this way be able to speak of the flesh of Christ, of 
his Spirit, or of the Gospel, of faith, or of any thing he 
wished, and then immediately speak of flesh and blood, 
or of men? Just as Christ does, Matt. 16, 15, when 
he speaks with the disciples, and asks, ‘‘ Whom say ye 
that IT am?” that is, he speaks with them concerning 
Christ, who was both God and man, and yet immediately 
afterwards, v. 17, says of ordinary flesh, “ Flesh and 
blood hath not revealed it unto thee.’”’ And Paul like- 


910 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 

wise, Gal. 1, 16, where he is writing about his office, 
says immediately afterwards, “I conferred not with 
flesh and blood.’’ If the iron wall stands no more 56- 
curely than that, let any one build upon it who desires 
to fall: not I,—it is not so good as one made of 
paper. 

- 316. The circumstancesof the text are farmore fayor- 
able to our own interpretation, if any one, without alterca- 
tion and with simplicity as it should be doae, will attend to, 
them. For I offer no comparison, but the text itself ex~ 
plicitly says, that both the Jews and the disciples were 
offended at the words of Christ about eating his flesh. 
Is not this evident? Here I amable toshow, and αὶ must 
say from the cireumstanges of the text, that Christ hadtwo, 
kinds of hearers: some who were offended and murmured ; 
others who believed and reformed. Now if a teacher 
had a class who did not rightly understand his instruc= 
tion, it would be very natural, in order to chastize them, 
for him to advert to that very misuaderstanding, and ta 
say, ‘ Ah! dulk brains will not understand it no how,” 
or thus: “ An ass never will be a good scholar; new 
wine must be put into. new bottles.’” 

317. Just so Christ may act in this place, when he. 
finds dull scholars; he may address himself to them, and 
say, ‘Are ye offended at this?” Here he chastizes their 
dull understandings, and may well say afterwards, “Ah! 
the flesh profteth nothing: the Spirit giveth life.”? So, 
spirit must here mean spiritual understanding or doc~ 
trine, because Christ himself so explains it, and says: 
«The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and 
they are life.” Consequently flesh must convey the op- | 
posite sense, and mean a fleshly understanding or doctrine. 
This explanation, I say, without any comparison, is far 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 4: 


-more evidently furnished by the text with all the cir- 
cumstances, than the sophistry of the Enthusiasts. 

318. This argument has been adduced above against 
Zwinglius, and G&colampadius employs the same scph- 
istry on the little word mea, which Zwinglius employs, 
and gives no answer. Again, he would 4 also répresent 
my rule as false, as I have said, that where flesh and 
spirit are contrasted with each other, there flesh cannot 
be the flesh of Christ; and he does nothing but cite the 
passage, 1 Tim. 3, 16, “ God was manifest in the flesn, 
and justified in the Spirit.’ What must I say? I spoke 
of flesh and Spirit standing contrasted with each other 
in the Scripture; so he produces a passage where flesh 
and spirit are not opposed to each other. And besides he 
does not prove, that it is to be understood as the flesh of 
Christ, still must he call this an answer. Well, so my 
rule stands secure as yet, that flesh here cannot rnean the 
flesh of Christ, and since this stands, their principal ar+ 
eument must be false. 

319. With an expression of the Fathers he proceeds 
thus. I cite their text, and he offers instead ἘΠ his own 
sophistry, and he produces nothing from the text, as i 
have done, even as he has modified the text in John 6, 
from his own imagination. Hence they distinctly let us 
understand how contemptuously they view mankind, and 
they believe confidently if they assert any thing, it must 
be strenuously maintained. W ell, Lhave settee against 
the Heavenly Prophets; i have been answered in no ar- 
eiment, except by their own fancies and sophistries. 
In reference to my little book against the Enthusiasts, 
it goes thus with me. They wish to talk a great 
deal; to answer they are not able, as I have proved quite 
abana sel ly in this book. So they may pass along, and 


312 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


be holy, spiritual, and learned. I have acted ac- 
cording to the advice of St. Paul, and they have been 
admonished a second time. May God convert them, and 
protect our adherents from their poison. Amen. 

320. But in order that I may render myself perfectly 
free and independent on these points I must think of my 
neighbors also, so that they may not suppose that £ scorn 
their science and knowledge. This Enthusiast writes 
that neither Awinglius, nor G&colampadius, nor Carl+ 
stadt, nor Luther, nor the Pope, must be considered 
right; and he makes his text upon the Lord’s Supper 
thus: “My body, which is given for you, is this ;” 
where the Evangelists and Paul set the word this in 
front, he sets t last, and insists that it means a spiritual 
meat. Hence his text stands thus: “ My body, which 
15 given for you, is this (understand) spiritual meal.” 
Do you ask why they do this, and do not adopt the text 
of Carlstadt, Zwinghus, or Gicolampadius, if they still 
mean the same? 

921. One may give three different kinds of answers: 
namely, that it is the will of God, for them to be at va- 
riance and opposed to each other, and dissimilar, so 
that the Holy Ghost may remain unimpeached, and evi- 
dently inculpable before all the world, as having done 
nothing in connection with them, because he is the spirit 
of union and not of disunion, and every one may be thus 
warned against these lying spirits. The second answer 
is in reference to human nature; namely, why shoulil 
they be so humble as to adopt the text of Carlstadt, 
Zwinglius, or Gicolampadius, if Carlstadt, Zwinghus, 
and Qicolampadius themselves are so high minded, 
as not to adopt each other’s text. If they cannot. be 
sufficiently ingenious to construct a special text; like that 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 313 


one, would it not be a great shame indeed? Beloved, 
honor ‘ls fully ‘as desirable to them as it is to the other 
three. The third answer is blasphemous; namely, that 
the Evangelists and Paul were drunk ‘or insane, so that 
they walked upon their heads, and this placed that which 
should ‘be above below, and that which should be in front 
in the rear, in the text of the Lord’s Supper ; hence this 
genius must ‘come and restore the text, and improve the 
Evangelists. 

322. The object and reason of this fancy of theirs, 
is, first that we may put away from our eyes the words 
*« This is my body,” and first consider the matter through 
the spirit. For he that clings to these words, “ This 
"is my body,” cannot come to this fancy,—I should say, 
to this lofty interpretation,—that bread is bread and wine 
is wine; but he that puts those words away from his 
eyes, may weil arrive at this interpretation. Here then 
you have an infallible rule, which will direct you pay 
in all truth, than the Holy Ghost himself can direct you 
namely, “where the Holy Scriptures ‘obstruct or per- 
vert thy fancy, put them away from your eyes, and Ἔδει 
of all follow thy own fancy, so thou canst attain the cor- 
rect course, all will succeed finely, as Moses teaches, 
Deut. 12, 8, Thou must not do what thou thinkest 
right, chat is, thou must do what thou thinkest right.” 

323. This evil spirit boldly comes, and teaches us 
publicly to disregard the Scripture, as Méinzer and Carl- 
stadt also do, who drew their science from their ¢nfer- 
nal evidence, and had no need of the Holy Scriptures as 
regards their own instruction, but to teach others, as 
an external testimony of their internal evidence. Now 
whoever believes this notorious spirit of evil, will de- 
scend ultimately into perdition. Yet there is no answer 


314 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


at all necessary, even against this absurdity, but these 
blasphemers ought to have such a foundation for their 
faith, since they do not believe Christ. 

324. In the second place; the tzpanation of the body 
of Christ, as they call it, is opposed, he says, to all the 
Holy Scriptures. What do you think here of this genius? 
He dares to open his mouth wide enough, for he wishes to 
be far superior to Zwinglius and CEcolampadius, who do 
not array the whole Scripture in opposition to it. But 
hear him: “The Old Testament,” says he, “speaks no- 
thing aboutit, to which, however, Christ refers us, John; 
39. So the New Testament speaks of his manifestation 
in the flesh, of which John is a harbinger, and not in the 
bread. So Christ himself says, Vo man knoweth the 
Father, except through me, he does not say, except 
through the bread.” 

325. Here you can perceive how much it corroborates 
the force of Truth, if these words, “ This is my body,”’ 
be removed from the eyes of men; for how otherwise 
could this Enthusiast say, that our interpretation is op- 
posed to the whole Scripture, if these words were kept be- 
forehiseyes? Besides, if these words were bound before 
his eyes with an iron chain, so that he could not re- 
move them, he would still have another artifice and rule 
for the truth, namely, he would say, that these words do 
not occurin the Old Testament. For, their being placed 
in the New Testament by St. Luke, chap. 22, 19; Matt. 
26, 26; Mark 14, 22; Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 24, is a matter 
of little consequence, as he can readily remove them from 
his eyes; but God must and should be fettered, so that 
he cannot place his words when and where he pleases, 
but where and how this Enthusiast requires him to place 
them. Now the Enthusiast fixes them and seeks them 


fFHE LORD’S SUPPER, 315 


in the Old Testament, and God himself did not place 
them there; therefore the Enthusiast has again overcome 
triumphantly and beyond a doubt. 

326. How can this Enthusiast miss the truth? 
Who, indeed, can persuade him from his error, since he 
keeps these two elegant arts and rules before him: the 
ene being, to cast the wards of God from the eyes, where 
they are found written. The other, if it be impossible 
to cast them from his sight, to turn to some other place, 
where they are not written, and then say: “ Lo! these 
words are not standing here; prove to me that they stand 
here ; if you do not, you certainly will have lost ; for you 
must present the words before me in such a manner, that 
I cannot remove them from my eyes, or cannot turn my 
eyes from them to another place.”’ This is the way we 
flesh-eaters should be assailed; this is the way to dis- 
comfit our God of bread. | 

327. Behold here and understand, whether Satan, 
through his deep malignity, does not abuse and mock 
us; but still, however, it contributes to the strength 
and security of our faith, because the luckless spirit keeps 
prating so unworthily. He knows that we cannot show 
the words of Christ at the last Supper in the Old Testa- 
ment; therefore he indicates by his gestures, as if he were 
desirous to be convinced, if only we could show these 
wordsin the Old Testament, imagining that no oneseeshis 
gross falsehoods; for since he will not look at the words in 
the New Testament, but casts them from his eyes, what 
would hedo if we peradventure might be abletoshow them 
inthe Old Testament? Still more wouldhethen cast them 
from his eyes, and pretend that the Old Testament is ob- 
scureorabrogated; that they should beshownto himinthe 
New Testament ; and that the New Testament is the ac- 


* 316 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


complishment of the Old. | 

328. And if every thing were in the Old Testament 
which we are to believe, what need would there be of 
the New? Where would have been the necessity of 
Christ’s coming upon earth to teach us? According to 
this reasoning, I might also say : ““ Baptism is of no con- 
sequence ; the mission of the Holy Ghost is of no conse- 
quence ; the mother of God, though the Virem Mary, is 
of no consequence ; ina word, no article of the Christian 
faith could stand. For in the Old Testament we find 
indeed allusions to the future advent of Christ, but there 
is not a letter therem, in reference to his having now 
come, and fulfilled all, instituted baptism, secured the 
forgiveness of sins, conferred the Holy Ghost, &c. All 
these things the New Testament has to declare; but this 
Enthusiast himself must declare what kind of reasons 
he has for his falsehoods, in order that we, with ereatez 
certainty, may take heed of him. 

329, Their third position is, that this empanation is 
contrary to the Christian Creed. For faith must have 
a spiritual object on which to depend; but bread isa 
material object. From this principle one may also de- 
duce, that Christ was not man upon earth; for his hu- 
manity was a physical, and not a spiritual object of per- 
ception; consequently, in reference to such a man, no 
one can believe that he is God without heresy. Again, 
no one can believe, that our neighbor is a Christian ; 
that man and woman are our parents, friends, or re- 
latives. Again, no one can believe that heaven and 
earth are the creation of God. The reasons are these : 
Faith cannot have a physical object for its perception ; 
but these objects mentioned above are all physical. So 
blind a spirit is this, that he cannot perceive how a phy- 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 417 


sical object is always presented to faith, under which 
this faith always perceives and understands another ob- 
ject, as I have proved in my little book with numerous 
examples, as from Rom. 4, 19, concerning the body of 
Sarah, with other similar examples. 

330. Their fourth ground of argument is, that it 1s in 
opposition to the nature and character of the words. For 
the word, hesays, is not a word of the voice or of the 
mouth, but the eternal truth of God, which cannot unite 
itself with bread or a mere creature. It is highly mm- 
portant to prove this argument carefully, in which they so 
egregiously defame the external word, as being unfit fer 
belief; consequently it is of little force what they prove by 
it, Since it is not proved itself. Butofthisat another time. 

331. Their fifth argument is, that it is in opposition to 
the priesthood and kingly office of Christ, which the Epi 
tothe Hebrews teaches. For wherever Christ is, there b: 
is a priest and king. But in the bread he ecannc 
be king; for bread is a created object in the world. 
Now = kingdom is not of the world. is not this 
admirable? Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, 
therefore it is not in the world; for this genzus makes 
of the world and in the tae synonymous. Alas! 
for us poor Christians! who must be in the world, : 
the midst of death, and under Satan, and our cana 18 
confined in heaven, so that he cannot govern or guard us 
nor help us, nor be with us; for his kingdom is in fegen 
and not in the world. Such teachers, so reckless and so 
insensible, are these Enthusiasts determined to have andno 
others. Loveand gratitude be to God, we know that Christ 
did not say inthe presence of Pilate, ‘‘ My kingdom is net 
here below,”’ but thus, “‘ My kinedom is not from hence,” 
John 18,36. Itexistsand prevailsevery where, wherever 


stle 
1. 


(ΣᾺ ὧ 


im 


918 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


he is, in the bread, in the world, in death, inhell, and among 

devils; but the strength of his kingdom consists not in 

the strength of bread, of the world, of death, of hell, of. 
the devil, for he receives nothing from these to strengthen 

his kingdom, as the world and Satan have to do. 

332. Their sixth argument is, that it is opposed to the 
glory of God; for Christisin heaven, intheglory of the Fa- 
ther, Phil. 2; and he has his throne prepared not in the 
bread, butinheaven. This argument, like the foregoing, 
will represent Christ as being in heaven, as in a prison or 
in the stocks. For it would be a shame, if he must be 
with us upon earth in all the necessities of sin and of 
death; it would be better for him to leave us here below 
with the devil, and amuse himself above with the angels. 
Is not this a precious thing? It is not in opposition to 
the honor of God, for him according to his Divinity to 
be every where, even in hell, but it must be contrary to 
the honor of God for his body to be in the bread, as if 
his body were more honorable than his Divinity!’ Away! 
away! This is an admirable spirit ! 

303. Finally, their argument is, that it is op- 
posed to the institution of Christ, and the practice 
of the primitive churches. “For the words of Christ 
are causative (Thetelwort), where he says, ‘ This is 
my body,’ and they are not declarative ( Heisselwort). 
For Christ never says, ‘If you pronounce these words, 
then shall my body be present.’ ”’ This argument he has 
stolen from Zwinglius, and it has been abundantly an- 
swered already. Thus have we heard this reckless 
spirit also, and have found no tooth there which could 
lacerate the words of Christ ; none indeed which can in- 
validate my little book. I have also reviewed my little 
book against the Heavenly Prophets, and it has been a 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 319 


subject of astonishment to me, that he has assailed it 
with scarcely a single word from Scripture, but with his 
own vain arguments only, and has left it so far altogether 
unconfuted. 

OF THE IDENTICAL PROPOSITION. 

994. There is a most degrading and painful point 
still remaining in reference to this subject, which, it seems 
tome, no Enthusiast has fairly understeod; for they indeed 
do not agitate the question, or agitate it in a very in- 
adequate manner, and concerning which all that has 
been said by the Enthusiasts is nothing but mere soph- 
istry. But this subject should with propriety engage 
the attention of every rational mind, and Wickliff, in his 
writings, considers it a question of the highest impor- 
tance, and the high schools have long been at variance 
about it throughout the world, until they have been con- 
strained to teach, that there is no bread essentially re- 
maining-in the Eucharist, but the form only of bread. 
For an identical proposition concerning different na- 
tures, is equally opposed to the Scripture and to reason ; 
that is, a proposition asserting that two distinct natures 
should be but one thing. Were not the Enthusiasts such 
very poor logicians, they would have discussed this pro- 
position ; it would indeed have been worth a discussion, 
and have led them to avoid that useless discussion 
about flesh, and Christ in heaven, with other childish 
nonsense ; accordingly we shall here say a few words in 
reference to this subject. 

335. It is indeed true, and no one can deny it, that 
it is impossible for two distinct substances to be one sub- 
stance. As that which is an ass cannot be an ox; that 
which is a man, cannot be a stone or piece of wood. 
And I am not allowed to say of St. Paul, This is a 


990 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


physical stone or block; unless I would desire to make 
stone and block new words and give new significations, as 
already remarked. ‘The rational principlein every human 
being raust acknowledge all this, and nothing else can be 
made ofit. Ifwenowcame tothe subject of the Hucharist 
with this idea, our reason will be confounded, for it will 
here discover two distinct substances, the bread and the 
body, spoken of as one individual essence in these words : 
“This is my body,’’ at which Reasonshakes her head and 
exclaims, ‘‘ Ah! it can never be, that bread should be 
body! Ifitis bread, itis bread; if body, body; which- 
ever way you please.” 

336. Under this difficulty, tae Sophists have retained 
body, and rejected bread, and they say: “ The bread 
vanishes and loses its nature under the repetition of the 
words, and the little word ¢hzs does not point out the 
bread, but it points out the body of Christ, when the 
text says, “ This is my body.’? On the other hand, 
Wickliff takes the opposite position ; he retains the bread, 
and rejects the body, and says that the little word this 
points out the bread and not the body. Thus they have 
brought their acute speculations into conflict with each 
other, so that the Sophists have to resort to a miracle, 
to explain how the bread vanishes, and suffers its essence 
to be dissipated. - 

337. Now I have been teaching all along, and 1 still 
teach, that this controversy is unnecessary, and that 
there is no great consequence in the matter, whether 
bread remains or not. Yet I maintain with Wickliff, 
that bread remains there; on the other hand, I maintain 
with the Sophists, that the body of Christ is present ; 
and thus in defiance of reason and the most acute logic, 
that it is very possible for two distinct substances to be 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 991 


and to be called one essence. And this is my reason : 
first, that in the contemplation of the word and works 
of God, we should surrender our reason and our human 
wisdom, as St. Paul teaches, 2 Cor. 10, 5, and suffer 
these to occupy, to lead, direct, teach and sway us, in 
rder that we may not become the judges of God in his 
vords. For we shall certainly fail in our decisions upon 
his words, as the 51 Psalm shows. 

338. In the second place, we should now surrender 
ourselves, and acknowledge that we do not understand 
his word and work; that we are satisfied, and speak about 
his work with his words in simplicity, as he has previ- 
ously prescribed and dictated to us to speak, and not with 
our words, as if these were better and more agreeable 
than his to speak; for we shall assuredly fail, if we do 
not speak after him with simple docility, just as he pre- 
viously speaks them to us, hke a young child repeating 
after his father the Creed, or the Lord’s Prayer. For 
here with all due submission, we should simply adhere 
to and follow the words, without any caviling. For 
since the words of God stand here (“ This is my body’’) 
perspicuously and plain, ordinary, well known words, 
which contain no figure, either in the Scripture or in 
any language, we must embrace them in our faith, and 
cause our reason to submit and surrender, and repeat 
them, not as acute sophistry would dictate, but as God 
utters them beforehand, 

339. Now if the ¢dentical proposition should 
make it appear inadmissible in Scripture or in rea- 
son, for two substances to be one thing, or that 
one substance can be another, as has been already 
said, a stone is not wood, water is not fire, even 
in the Scripture; accordingly it must be opposed to the 


322 THE LORD’S SUPPER, 


word of God, and the articles of the Creed, that one thing: 
can be another thing different from what it is, and bread 
must be bread, and cannot be body, you must answer, 
that it is not opposed to the Scripture ; it is not opposed 
to reason and strict logical argument; but that they 
immagine it to be opposed to the Scripture, to reason, and 
to logic, for they do not take a proper view of it. 
We must prove this by examples, in order that people 
may better understand, first from the Scripture, and 
secondly out of our common dialect. 

940. The abstruse article concerning theholy Trinity 
teaches us to believe and to say, that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons, yet they severally 
constitute one God. | Here the expression 1s employed in 
reference to the unity of the Godhead, that they are 
threefold, as three persons, which is far more abstruse, and 
more directly opposed to the dictates of reason, than to say 
that wood is stone ; for certainly wood does not possess in 
itself so entirely an individuality of essence, as the God- 
head; and then, wood and stone are not so entirely un- 
mingled and undistinguished as the persons are. Now 
if it is possible here for the unity of nature and of being 
to cause us to speak of distinct persons, and yet a single 
individual Being, it certainly cannot be opposed to the 
Scripture nor the articles of the Creed, for two distinct 
things to be called, or spoken of, asa single being or sub< 
stance, as bread and body, If this consideration, how- 
ever, 1s too transcendental, let us bring another before us. 

341. 1 point to the man Christ, and say: “ This is 
the Son of God,”® or, ‘‘ This man is the Son of God.” 
Here it is not necessary for the humanity to vanish or be 
annihilated, in order that the little word ¢hzs may point 
τὸ God and not to man, as on the subject of the Eucha- 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. O23 


rist the Sophists imagine concerning the bread; but the 
humanity must remain; yet man and God are far more 
separated from each other, and far greater is the 
disparity between them, than bread and body, fire 
and wood, or an ox and an ass. Whd brings it to pass 
here, that two distinct natures become one Being, and 
one may be spoken of for the other? Doubtless it is 
not the essential unity of the natures, for there are two 
distinct natures and beings, but it is the personal union. 
For although there were not one being according to the 
natures, there still would be one being according to the 
persons, and hence arise two kinds of union and two 
kinds of being, as a natural union and a personal union: 
From the personal union arises this proposition: ‘ God 
is man, and man is God.”’ Similarly from the natural 
union in the Godhead arises this proposition: ‘ God is 
the Father, God is the Son; and God is the Holy Ghost;”’ 
and vice versa: * The Fatheris God, the SonisGod,” &é. 

342. Here then we have two unities, one natural, the 
other personal, which teach us, that an ¢dentical pro= 
position is not contrary to Scripture, or that two dis+ 
tinct beings may be called one Being. If we desire to 
examine this further, Ps. 104, 4, says, “ΒΟ maketh 
his angels spirits, his ministers a flaming fire.”? Here also 
are two kinds of being, angelsand spirits, ministersand fire, 
as in the το τ bread and body, still the Scripture 
here represents the two beings as one, and it says, “‘ He 
maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming 
fire,’ just as he converts his body into bread ; so that we 
can say of this spirit and flame, that it is an angel, and 
the Scripture also says that whoever sees this wind or 
flame, sees an angel. Now, no one, indeed, can see an 
angel in his natural state, but only in flame or in luminous 


324 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


form, nor Must this bright form vanish, when any dne points 


‘and ‘says, “ That is an angel;”’ as the Sophists reduce the 


bread in the Eucharist to nothing, but it must remain. 
343. Now here again is a union of two distinct be- 
ings, namely, of an angel and of flame: I know not how 
it is to be called. It is not a natural unity, as in the 
Godhead, Father and Son are one nature ; nor is it a per- 
sonal unity, as God and man are one person in Christ. 
Let it, for instance, be called a coefficient unity, because 
the angel and hisform accomplish one work. Still, how= 
ever, the Scriptures here declare, that Abraham and Lot 
saw angels, they heard them, they sat with them at meat, 
and entertained them, Gen. 18,2. Gideon and Manoah 
saw and heard angels, chap. 19,1; David and Daniel 


saw and heard angels, Judges 6, 12; Mary, at the grave 


of Christ, saw and heard an angel, Matt. 28, 5; and so 
in many other instances, in all of which, however, no 
angel was seen according to his nature, but only accord- 
ing to his form and lustre ; and were some person to point 
to one, he would have to say, “ That 1s an angel,”’ and 
still the word that would designate the form only of an 
angel. 

344. If now the acute Wickliff and the Sophists will 
present the identical proposition, in order to prove that 
two distinct beings cannot be but one thing, nor that one 
thing can be chia another, but either the form must re- 
main without the angel, as W ickhif contends, or the an- 


gel without the form, as the Sophists will have it, we 


make no further inguiry. The perspicuous Scripture 
and the visible work of God stand there, showing that 


God converted his angel into a flame, and the flame 1s 


the angel, if one points to it and says, ‘ That is an an- 
wel,” in consequence of the coefficient unity, so that two 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. - 324 
béings have become one} as in Christ, in consequence of 
the personal union, God and man are one being. Ina 
this manner, too, we must speak in reference to the Ku- 
charist: “‘ This is my body,” although the word this des- 
ionates the bread; for a union has taken place between | 
twe distinct substances, as will appear trom what follows. 

345. In the fourth place, the Evangelists write that 
the Holy Ghost came upon Christ in the form of a dove, 
at the river Jordan, John 1, 32. Again upon the dis- 
ciples on the day of Pentecost in the form of wind and 
fiery tongues, Acts 2, 2, seq. Again, on mount Tabor 
in the form of a cloud, Matt.17, 5. Here Wickhff and 
the Sophists may display their wisdom, and say, “ This 
dove was there without the Holy Ghost, or the Holy 
Ghest without the dove.” "We say in oppositicn to both 
views, that if one would péint to the dove, he might say 
with strict propriety, “‘ That is the Holy Ghost,”? be- 
cause here the two distinct beings, as Spirit and dove, 
have in some degree become one being, though not 
naturally or personally. Well, rowably they are a 
formal union, because the Holy Ghost desired to 
exhibit himself in such a form, and the Scripture heré 
freely expresses itself, that whoever would see this dove, 
sees also the Holy Ghost, John 1, 33, “Upon whom 
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and retaining 
on him.” 

346. Why then should we not much more say in re- 
ference to the Eucharist, “ This is my body,’’ althouch 
bread and body are two distinct objects, and the word 
this points to the bread? For here, too, there has ta+ 
ken place a union between two objects, which I will cali 
a sacramental union, because the body of Christ and the 
bread are given to us as a sacrament; for there is nof 


23 


326 : THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


ἃ natural or personal union as in Christ, which is per- 
haps a different union, from that of the dove with the 
iloly Ghost, and the flame with the angel, yet it is in 
truth also a sacramental union. 

347, Accordingly, it has been said with the utmost 
propriety, that if a person, referring to the bread, re- 
marks, that it is the body of Christ, and whoever sees 
the bread behoids at the same time the body of Christ, 
lis assertion is correct and true} as John said he saw 
the Holy Ghost; when he saw the dove. Thts also it 
‘s correct to say, whenever any one takes the bread, 
that he takes the body of Christ; when he eats the 
bread, that he eats the body ; when he presses this bread 
with his teeth and tongue, that he presses the body of 
Christ with his teeth and tongue; and ever true will it 
remain, however, that no one beholds, handles, eats, or 
iasticates the body of Christ in that visible manner in 
‘which one eats or masticates other flesh; for whatever 
is done to the bread, is weil and properly attributed to the 
body of Christ, in consequence of the sacramental union: 

348. Hence the Enthusiasts have acted improperly, 
as well as the Glossary on the ecclesiastical law, where 
they censure pope Nicolaus for forcing Berenger to this 
confession, namely, compelling him to say, that he ground 
and pressed with his teeth the real body of Christ. 
Would to God, that all the popes were constrained to 
speak in a manner so becoming a Christian on all sub- 
jects, as this pope constrained Berenger to speak. For 
it is indeed the design of God, that whoever takes and 
eats this bread, shall take and eat the real body of Christ, 
and not mere bread only, as Wickliff teaches; for this 
bread is the body of Christ, just as the dove was the 
Moly Ghost, and the flame the angel. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 327 


949, Their unseasonable logic has betrayed the acute 
Wickliff and the Sophists, because they have not previ- 
ously studied their grammar or science of words. For 
if one desires to understand logic before he is acquainted 
with grammar, to teach before he hears, to judge before he 
can speak, assuredly nothing good can come of it. Logic 
teaches very correctly that bread and body, dove and 
Ghost, God and man, are distinct natures or substances ; 
but these men cought beforehand to hear grammar to aid 
their comprehension, which teaches us in all lancuages, 


when two distinct substances are united in one, to’ 


desionate these two substances by a single term, 
and since we refer to the union of the two substances, 
we must spegk of both with a single term. 

350. For instance, as God and man constitute a per- 


sonal being in Christ, therefore both must be spoken of 


as follows: “ Heis God; heisman.” Again, as to the 
dove, John 1, 22, “ That is the Holy Ghost; that is the 
dove.” Again, as to the angel, ‘ That is a spirit; that 
is an angel;” “ This is bread; this is my body.” And 
sometimes, again, one is spoken of for the other, thus: 
«Man is God; God is man;” “ the dove is the Holy 
Ghost; the Holy Ghost is the dove;” “the spirit or 
the flame is the angel; the angel is the flame;”? “The 
bread is my body ; my body is the bread.” 

ool. For here we are not speaking of the object as 
being constituted cf distinct ingredients, and twofold in 
its nature, after the manner in which Wickliff and the 
Sophists make so improper an application of logic, but 
we are speaking of the object as a unit, after these 
distinct substances have become one, each one in its 
own character. For it is an evident truth, that 
ihese distinct substances have truly so united into 


——— ν 


— 


328 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 

one, a new individual substanee having been con~ 
stituted by this combination, according to which they 
are called with the strictest propriety one substance, 
although each one in its separate condition constitutes 
a distinct substance; this circumstance has deceived 
Wicklif and the Sophists; and they discussed the parts 
of a unit, In reasoning upon the entire unity. 

392. ‘This mode of speaking about distinct substan- 
ees as of one substance, the grammarians denominate a 
Synecdoche; and it isa very ecmmon figure, not only 
in the Seripture, but also throughout our general liter 
ature. As if, pomting to or proffermg a bag ora purse, 
{ should say, “* This is a hundred guilders,” in which 
expression, the gesture and the word this has reference 
to the purse; but because the purse and the gold consti- 
tute in some measure one compound mass or lump, the gold 
is also indicated at the same time. In this manner, E lay 
my hand ona cask, and say, “‘’Thisis Rhenish wine ; this 
is Welsh wine; thisisred wine.” Again, I take a giass 
and say, “ This is water; this is beer; this is ointment.” 
Tn all theseexpressions you discern how the little word thes 
indicates the vessel; and yet because the liquid and the 
vessel constitute in some measure one object, it designates 
at the same time, indeed principally, the liquid. 

303. ‘Thus have I given an example above also. 
The man who wounds the son of the king in the hand, 
is condemned for wounding the son of the king, be- 
cause the hand is identical with the son of the king, 
that is, it is a member of his, although it possesses in 
itself a distinct individuality, as a hand; for a hand is 
certamly not a human body. Here will also apply my 
illustration of the heated iron, quoted from St. Augus- 
tine, in which the Enthusiasts have felt great perplexity, 


THE LORD'S BUPPER. 324 


and have not yet been able to refute it. For be the de- 
gree of heat whatever it may, it is correctly said in every 
Janguage, that the object is fire and it 15 tron. 

304. Nowiftheacute Wickliff and the Sophistsshould 
here burst into a laugh, and say, “* You show me a purse, 
and say it is a hundred guilders; how can a purse be a 
hundred cuilders?”’ again, if he should say, ‘* You show 
me a cask, and say it is wine: friend, a cask 1s wood, 
and not wine; a purse is leather and not gold ;”—the 
children would also laugh atit asat the nonsense ofa clown 
orajester. Forhe divides the two united substances froz’ 
cach other, and seems determined tospeak concerning each 
separately, though we are still considering those expres- 
sions where the two substances are supposed to be com- 
bined. For the cask is here no longer merely wood or a 
cask, but it is wood with wine, a wine-cask; and the purse 
is no longer merely leather or a purse, but it is leather with 
gold, a purse of gold. But if you divide this com tex 
idea, coasidering gold and leather separately, each eub- 
stance is doubtless an individual in itself, and we must 
then with propriety speak of each distinctively, thus: 
“This is gold; this is leather; this is wine; this is a 
eask.”” But while you regard them in connection es a 
whoie, you must speak of them conjointly. pointin 
to the cask and the purse, and saying, “ This is go'd 
this 15 wine ;”’ in consequence of the unity of the ob ect. 
For we must not attend to what these acute sophists pre- 
tend, but attend only to the expressions, and exam: 
what is the mode, the usage, and the custom of 
speaking. | 

305. For since this mode of speaking is common in 
the Scripture, and in all kinds of composition, the ¢dea- 
tical proposition is no obstacle to us in the Eucharist. 


δ κ 
~ 
wD 
. 
͵ 


"τὰ 
im 


330 THE LORD’s SUPPER: 


There is even no identical proposition there, but it is 
merely a dream of Wickliff and the Sophists. For al- 
‘though body and bread are two distinct substances, each 
ene independent in itself, and where they are considered 
separately, certainly neither can be taken for the other, 
yet when they are combined, and become one entire sub- 
stance, they then lose their dictinctive characters, so far 
2s they constitute One distinct object, and as they ac- 
taally become and are but one thing. Thus the object 
is then called, and spoken of as, one definite object, so 
that there is no necessity for one of its constituent parts 
to disappear and yield, but both bread and body remain, 
and it is properly said, in consequence of the Sacramental 
nie «This is my body,’ designating the bread by the 
ittle word this. For it is now no, longer mere bread 
trom the oven, but flesh-and-bre ad, (Fleisches Brod,) or 
hody-and- -bread, (Leibs Brod 9) that is, a bread which has 
|ecome identical, one sacramental substance, with the body 
ef Christ. So also with the wine in thecup: “ Thisis my 
hlood,’? with the little word ¢hzs designating the wine. 
For it is now no longer common wine in the cellar, but 
blood and wine, (B/utswein,) that is, a wine which has 
hecome a sacramental substance with the blood of Christ. 
let this be sufhcient for our friends on this part; the 
thers are taught by their leader to esteem nothing, 
except that which he thinks proper for thein. 


THE SECOND PART. 


356. We desire now to bring the passages of the 


Evangelists and of St. Paul before us, in order to_ 


strengthen our conscience, and first you should accept 
the Enthusiasts’ own confession. For they acknowledge 
and must acknowledge, that our interpretation is as the 


THE LORD’s SUPPER. 331 


words naturally read in themselves, and that to speak 
according to the purport of the words, our interpretation 
is right beyond a doubt. But they contend that the 
words should not be understood as they read. This 
acknowledgement, I say, yeu ought to accept. For this 
is just equivalent to Πα] ἃ victory. Because they now 
acknowledge that, if the words were to be understood 
as they read, our interpretation would be right, they 
acquit us by their own evidence. First, that we need 
not prove our interpretation farther than to relate the 
words as they stand and read. This is one thing which 
you must well observe. Secondly, they burden and fet- 
ter themselyes with two immense tasks or duties; one 
ἀπ, that they are bound to show why the words should 
not be understood as they read, but otherwise; the other, 
that they must substitute instead of these words a differ- 
ent set of words, and a different text, which will be in- 
dabitable, and upon which one may rest assured. These 
two things they have not done as yet, and especially the 
second they have not undertaken to do, as we have all 
along been stating and proving, by which they constrain - 
us to remain satisfied with the sense which the words 
convey as they stand, and bring themselyes to shame 
with their indeterminate falsehoods. 

357. Secondly, you know, and you ought to know 
indeed, that our text—‘‘ This is my bedy’’—is net of 
rer, but of God himself, from his own mouth, spoken 
and written down in these very letters and words. But 
the text of the Enthusiasts—‘ This signifies my body,” 
or, “ This is the sign of my body”’—is not from God, 
speken in these letters and words, but from man only. 

358. Thirdly, you have already heard that they 
themselves are all the time in great uncertainty as to 


332 THE LORD’s SUpPPren. 


their text, and no one of them as yet has substantially 
proved his conception of the text, that it must certainly 
end assuredly stand as they have placed it, and they 
will never be able to produce an indubitable text. But 
our text is certain; it is evident that it should and must 
stand thus, as the words read, for God himself has placed 
them so, and no one dare to retrench a single letter from 
it, or to add a single letter. 

359. Fourthly, you know that they are at variance, 
and make many discordant texts out of these words, so 
that they are not only in a state of uncertainty—which 
oucht to be enough of Satan—but are also oppesed to 
each other, and must impeach one enother with false- 
hood. ut our text is not only certain, but also single 
and simple, and adopted among us all. 

360. Fifthly, even admitting that our text and in- 
terpretation are also uncertain and obscure—which is 
not the case—as well as their text and interpretation ; 
you still have, however, this one noble provision, that 
you are able to abide by our text with a good conscience, 
and express yourself thus: “If T must then have an un- 
certain and obscure text and interpretation, I will have 
that one, which has been spoken from the mouth of God 
himself, rather than have one which has been spoken 
from the mouth of mew. And shoutd I be deceived, ἢ 
would rather be deceived by God, were it possible, than 
by men; for if God deceive me, he will satisfactorily 
answer it, and restore me to the path of truth. But 
men will never restore me, if they have deceived and led 
ame to hell.”? This confidence the Enthusiasts never can 
‘possess. For they are not able to say: “I would ra- 
ther depend on the text, which Zwinglius and Gico- 
lampadius have discordantly expressed, than upon 


a) 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 833 


that which Christ himself has harmoniously express- 
ed.”’ 

901. Accordingly you will be able freely to address 
Christ, both in the hour of death and at the final judg- 
ment, thus: “ My beloved Lord Jesus Christ, there has 
arisen a great controversy about thy words in the fast 
Supper. Some wish them to be understood differently 
from their natural import. But because they teach 
nothing with certainty, but only pervert the sense and 
render it dubious; nor are they able or willing in any 
way to prove their text, I determined to rest satisfied 
with thy text, as the words read. If there is any thing 
obscure in them, it was thy design to leave them obscure ; 
for thou hast given no other explanation of them, nor 
commanded any to be given. No one can find in the 
Scripture, nor in any composition, that zs 15 equivalent 
to signifies, or my body equivalent to the sign of my 
body. 

362. Now if there be an obscurity in the words, thou 
wilt readily excuse me for missing their true design, as 
thou didst thy disciples, when they did not fully under- 
stand thee on many points, as when thou didst announce 
thy suffering and thy resurrection, and they understood 
thy words, as they were spoken, and made nothing else 
out of them. As thy beloved mother also did not un- 
derstand, when thou saidst to her, Luke 2, 49, ‘I must 
be about my Father’s business,’ and with simplicity she 
received the words in her heart, and made nothing else 
outof them. Thus have 1 also rested upon these words 
of thine—‘ This is my body ;’ and I have made noth- 
ing more nor less out of them, nor suffered it to be done, 
but committed and presented them unto thee, if any 
thing obscure should be in them, cbseryed them as they 


οὐ eee TT TT πίονι. τις ....-- .--....... . . ςν.ϑ ὦ. 


334 THE LORD’S SUPPER, 


read, especially since I discover that they do not come 
in conflict with any of the articles of the Creed.’ Be- 
hold, no Enthusiast will dare to speak thus with Christ, 
# know perfectly ; for they are undecided and at variance 
in reeard to their text. 

863. For I have tried,—even if there were merely 
bread and wine in the Eucharist,—and if I should still 
try with ple easure how I might express the fact, that the 
body of Christ is in the bredds 1 could, however, really 
say nothing more clear and distinct than this: “ Take, 
eat, this is my body.” For if the text stood thus: 
“Take, eat, in the bread is my body,” or, “ With the 
bread is my body,”’ or, “ Under the bread is my body,” 
then would it have begun to rain, to hail, to snow en- 
thusiasts, who would exclaim: ‘ Behold there, do 
you hear; Christ does not say, ‘This bread is my 
body,’ but ‘in the bread, with the bread, under the 
bread is my body ;’”? and then they would exclaim: 
“Oh how gladly would we believe if he had said, 
‘ This is my body,’ which would have been perspicu- 
ous and plain. But now he says, in the bread, wiih 
the bread, under the bread, and it will not follow 
thence that his body is present ;’’ and thus there would 
have been a thousand evasions and prevarications devised 
about the words in, w2th, under, with greater plausi- 
blity and much more obstinacy than now. 

904, Yet they dare to say: ‘“ Where does it stand 
written that the body of Christ is in the bread,” just as 
if they were ready to believe, if we could prove it, and 
still will not believe, when we have proved invincibly 
that “the bread is the body of Christ,’? which indeed 
is expressing more forcibly and more perspicuously the 
presence of his body, than this text: ‘In the bread is 


: ; ed ἄνω ΖΕ 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. Soe 


my body.’? But they act deceitfully, and pretend 
that God must furnish a text, such as they may direct | 
him ; and if he would do so, they would still not receive 
it, inasmuch as they do not receive this. 

365. Now since we have proved with sufficient force, 
that neither the figure of Zwinglius, nor the emblem of 
QG2colampadius can be sustained, we have in doing so, 
maintained every text in reference to the Eucharist, so 
that it must allow our interpretation as the words read. 
And although I have abundantly discussed these texts in 
my little book against the Heavenly Prophets, and noth= 
ing to the present day from the Enthusiasts has appeared 
in Opposition to my arguments there, except barren, 
frivolous sophistry from their own imaginations, without 
a single quotation from Scripture, but constructed en- 
tirely upon their own figures and emblems, and now all 
this together with their figures and emblems, has fallen 
to the ground, and my book maintains its force, as you 
yourself may read and infer from the sections, .G. 
H.I. K. &c., I wiil, however, discuss the same texts 
again successively, in order to confirm our interpretation. 

900. St. Matthew is the first, who says, chap. 26, 
26, 27, *‘ As they were eating, Jesus took bread; and 
blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
said, ‘ Take, eat? this is my body.’ And he took the 
cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 
‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new tes- 
tament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’ : 

907. These words were spoken by the mouth of God, 
although the Enthusiasts do not value them more highly 
than if they had been spoken by a common vagrant or 
inebriate. For Zwinglius in one passage betrays un- 
_ common resentment against us, and says, “ We stand 


336 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


cut obstinately on five poor wretched words. Al) this 
he does from his skillin Rhetoric! If one were maintain- 
ing a bad cause, and his opponent were to wound and 
alarm him with the perspicuous truth, he should 
push it away with his hand, wipe his mouth, and say, 
“That is nothings; it is not worth an answer; it is 
enly five poor, wretched words.” But by this he can 
mean nothing less than that God is an idol, and that 
all the world are mere stocks and stones, who are quite 
willing to acquiesce when they hear these expressions of 
disdain. For the rhetorre of Zwinglius accords here ex- 
cellently with that genius in Silesia, that we must remove 
these words from the siyht, and reject them as poor, 
wretched words; they will then secure the victory, and 
discover the ἜΤΕΙ ἢ truth, which must be the clear 
ground of explaining and understanding these perspicu- 
ous words. χ 

368. But we poor, insignificant flesh-eaters, are 
struck in the mean while ah astonishment, how ἢ 
comes Yo pass that this braggart, this mighty hed 
of Satan’s kinedom, shouid Ee able to allege nothing 
against these five poor, wretched words, except a 
shameless, open, presumptuous volley of abuse. ff 
to abuse be sufficient for the determination of truth, 
then Satan may reasonably be considered the God of all 
gods. But with such arguments they prove contrary to 
their design, what kind of a spirit they have, and hot 
dearly they esteem the word of God, since they abuse 
these precions words as poor and contemptible, that ts, 
they do not believe they are the words of God. For if 
they believed that they are the words of God, they 
would not call them poor and contemptible, but even 
esteem each syllable and letter more valuable than the 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 337 


whole world, and tremble and do reverence before them 
as in the presence of God himself. For whoever scorns 
a Single word of God, certainly esteems none very highly. 
Were they, however, thus to abuse our interpretation, or 
any misconception of ours, and not the word of God him- 
self, it might be at least tolerable. But now what shall 
we do with those, who regard these words not as con- 
temptible, but as divine, τ and worthy of rever= 
ence? What must we do? They must also be regarded 
as contemptible fools, who are not able to disdain these 
words, nor cast them from the sight. 

069. For since és here is not figurative, and my body 
cannot be proved to be the sign of my body, and the 
expressions, “‘ the flesh profiteth nothing,” ‘“ Christ is 
seated in heaven,” do not constrain us to adopt that 
sense, and fd reason can-ever be o1V en to understand the 
words differently from the sense “hae naturally convey, 
as we have already heard, we must rest satisfied with 
them and adhere to them, as the most perspicuous, the 
most indubitable, the most infallible words of God, which 
can never betray us, or suffer us to be betrayed. For 
it is said with the utmost possible simplicity—<‘‘ This is 
my body; this is my blood of the new testament,’’—s0 
that, if we should collate all the expressions and words 
in the World, it would be impossible to find or to select 
a tore simple expression from them all. Hy 
sible for Christ to speak with greater simplicity concern- 
ing his body and biood, Caer M fy body,”’ or 
« This is my body ; this is my blood.’’ 

370. Now, δὲ to the Enthusiasts pretending that 
Christ did not say, “Tn the bread is my body,” or, “ If 
you repeat these words, my body shall be present,’”’—this 
all amounts to nothing. Let them take their choice of 

29 


yas impos- 


338 : δ δὲ ὅκα 
209 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


expressions, and endeavor to speak with greater simpli- 
city on this subject. If Christ had spoken thus: “In 
the bread is my body,” they would have had much more 
reason for their opinion, and they might have pretended, 
that Christ is in the bread in a spiritual or ae a ale 
manner. For if in these words—* This is my body,” : 
they have been able to find a figurative expression, ho 
rduch more would they have been able to find a figure 
in these words—“In the bread is my body?? And 
this they would have doné besides with greater plausi- 
bility ; for the expression is more definite and perspicu- 
ous, if I say, “ This is my body,” than if I say, “In 
this is my body.” 

371. But if Christ had spoken thus: “ If you shall 
speak these words, my body shall be present,” they 
would soon have come forward with their reasonings: 
‘€ Yes indeed, friend, Christ did not say, ‘ This bread is 
my body,’ but he said, ‘My body shall be present.’ 
Now he is altogether able to be present, and yet the 
read need not be his body.”? Behold, what an admira- 
ble argument they might have advanced here! But if 
Ke had said thus: ‘* When ye shall pronounce these 
words, then my body shall be present in the bread,” 
then they would have said, “ Yes, the body of Christ is 
οἰ certainly present in the ΤῸ but not essentially, only 
apr ΠΌΣΗ or figuratively.” if he had expressed bim- 
self thus: “ When ye shall pronounce these words, then 
shall my body be present essentially in the bread,” they 
would have replied again, “‘ Yes, certainly, his body is 
present essentially in the bread, but essentially must be 
understood in this manner concerning the body of Christ; 
namely, Christ has an essential body, and not such a one 
as Marcion imagined; this essential body is certainly 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 309 


present in the bread, but as in the emblem and not really 
present.” 

372. The result of the whole is, that if God would 
give them the choice to fix upon a text, they would 
never fix on one so indubitable as this is; but they would 
always be finding more and more deficiencies or redun- 
dancies in it than they find in thisone. Hence whoever 
will not suffer himself to adhere to this text according 
to our interpretation, would never suffer himself to ad- 
here ta any text. Now it is very certain indeed, that 
the Enthusiasts have resolved among themselves that 
they wiil not be subjected to this text. This is proved 
by the fact, that they have in various points mutilated 
and abused this text. One wishes to take refuge in the 
word rovre; another in the word zs ; a third in the ex~- 
pression my body ; another in this or that, like the fishes 
that broke St. Peter’s net; and they adduce arguments 
so desultory and weak as to be far more uncertain and 
obscure than this text. And it is all a false and frivo- 
lous pretence, that they demand a surer, simpler, clearer 
text. For they are- conscious, that no text could be 
framed to be clearer, or more indubitable, even if they 
had the choice to prepare one; but because they feel, 
that this text is too plain and certain, they wish to be- 
guile us altogether, in order that we may frame another, 
in which they might be able to find defects or redun- 
dancies far more numerous, and thus enjoy the appear- 
ance of having subverted a plainer text than the one 
which we find in the Gospel, which would then become 
entirely unavailing. No, Satan, you can do nothing in 
this way. You must submit, you are obliged to sur- 
render to this text, and nothing can secure you from it. 


373, In St. Mark is another passage, chap. 14, vy. 


cm] 10 Ψ 
Oat THE LORDS SUPPER. 


22, 23, 24, which says: “ And as they did eat, Jesus 
took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, 
and said, This is my body. And he took the cup, and 
when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they 
all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my 
blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many,” 

374. From this text Carlstadt has drawn his first 
conjecture concerning τουτο 3 because Mark here speaks 
as if the disciples had all drunk out of the cup before 
Christ said, ‘This is my blood ;” that by this he im- 
mediately afterwards refers to his own blood while sit- 
ting, because the cup was already exhausted. This ex- 
planation, however, has long ago been rejected and be- 
come obsolete. For not only the other Evangelists and 
St. Paul have written to the contrary, but St. Mark 
himself, where speaking of another part of the saera- 
ment, he does not write, that the disciples had eaten the 
bread, and then that Christ said, “‘ This is my body.” 
Whence the expression in reference to drinking, must be 
judged of according to its order, if the other Evangel- 
ists, and Paul, and St. Mark himself, coincide in the 
expression concerning the eating ; for he cannot be op- 
posed to himself, and opposed to all the others. 

375. I wonder, too, how it comes to pass, that St. 
Mark only writes this sentence, ‘ And they all drank 
of it;’’ and does it, too, precisely in the connection in 
which Matthew writes in/his text, “ἦς Drink ye all of it,” 
so as to render it highly probable, that the text in St. 
Mark has been altered, and πίον substituted for πίετε; 
for if πίετε would stand here, it would be exactly the 
same text with that of Matthew, with whom St. Mark 
is accustomed in other respects most generally to coin- 
cide, This I leave to the learned. I maintain that, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 941 


where Matthew writes prior to all others, “" Drink ye all 
of it,’? and where Mark writes also prior to all others, 
«They all drank of it,’ these sentences were so writ- 
ten, because both Evangelists wished to indicate how 
the disciples had all drunk out of this cup; not 
in consequence of thirst, as their previous acts of drink- 
ing had very probably occurred, when the cup was filled 
more than once before it had’ gone around; but that 
they had to pass ¢his round, and thus drank moderately 
out of it, so that they all had an opportunity to drink 
out of it. To the same import, Luke also writes that 
Christ in this manner passed around the last drink before 
the institution of the Eucharist,in order that they all might 
drink out of one cup, where he says, Divide this cup 
among you, Luke 22,19. Asifhe would say, “ There 
were indeed more cups on the table, out of which each 
one drank as it set before him; or one cup was filled 
more than once; but this cup was passed around at the 
last, so that all might drink out of the same, whereby a 
farewell was given to the old Paschal Lamb.” 

976. Thus in reference to this particular cup, Mat- 
thew and Mark also may be understood, by conceiving 
either that each of the disciples had a cup before him on 
the table, or that there were more cups than one. But 
here now, when he was about to give a new, peculiar 
drink of his blood, he commands them all to drink out 


of this one cup; and thus by reaching forth and with a | 


peculiar gesture, Christ took his own cup, and gave 
them all to drink out of it, in preference to all the other 
cups which were on the table, enabling them in this way 
the better to observe, that this was to be considered a 
peculiar drink, superior to all the others which had been 
given during the repast. For he could readily, indeed 


ες ἜΝ. »- 


342 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


he must, have so distributed the bread, that each one had 
a piece before him. But ke could not distribute the 
wine in this manner; he must have left it in one cup for 
them all, and then intimated by his words, that it was to 
%e a drink In common for them all, and not to be placed 
before and drunk by one, or two, or three only, as the 
other cups on the table had steed free to each one as he 
wished. | 

377. Thus doubtless by these gestures he obviously 
vished to distinguish his Supper from the Paschal Sup- 
per. First, in giving the farewell drink, as Luke writes. 
By this he excites the attention of bis disciples, so that 
they are forcibly led into the following reflections: 
<¢ What can be his object in giving the lest drink from 
his own cup? Not till this moment has he acted thus 
at table.”? Especially as St. Luke writes, With his 
own words he declared this the last, and said, “I say 
unto you, that henceforth I shall not drink of the fruit 
of the vine, till the kingdom of God come :᾽ as we shall 
hear. 

378. Secondly, in taking in his hand a particular 
loaf, in preference to all other bread, blessing and 
breaking it after this last drink, which necessarily caused 
them to think: “ How! does he intend to eat again, 
though he has given the last drink?’ ‘Thus they were 
naturally induced to observe narrowly what he was do- 
ing, and to listen at what he said. For he had not 
acted thus at the table with the other bread in the cele- 
bration of the Paschal Supper, but now, after the Pass- 
over and the last drink, he institutes a new Supper, and 
says, It ts his body. Were they keep silent, and be- 
lieve with simple humility: not one of them asks how 
the bread can be his body. 


ΤῊΣ LORD’S SUPPER. 343 


379. Thirdly, in giving his own cup, and command- 
ing all to drink of it, he must also have awakened their 
attention, because he had not acted thus before with any 
other cup; and when he said, “It is my blood,”’ once 
more they became silent and believed. For they surely 
had reason te think, that what he said must be true. 
Because they saw, that by this new gesture after the con- 
clusion of the first Supper, he was commencing anew, was 
giving thanks anew, was pronouncing the benediction 
anew, and then that he took a particular loaf, which he 
divided among t'em all, and conveyed his own cup 
around to them all, and conciuded this Supper with one 
loaf and one cup. Here again they had good reason to 
think, that he knew well what he was doing and saying, 
so that it would demand no inguiry, although they saw 
that it was a new and a different Supper. 

950. In fine, they had eaten the Paschal Supper in 
a manner which proved that he had not commanded 
them to eat or to drink, nor had he laid or placed it be- 
fore any one, but each one had eaten and drunk as.it 
stood before him, as Matthew and Mark say, “ When 
they had eaten, he took the bread,” &c. But now the 
repast proceeded quite in a different manner. He selects 
and takes up a certain peculiar loaf, pronounces thanks 
ever it, breaks it himself, and divides it among them, lays 
it before them, commands them to eat, and then adds, 
“This is my body, which is given for you.” In the same 
manner he acts with the cup. He selects and gives them 
a particular cup for all. Of the other bread ke did not 
command them to eat, nor of the other cups to drink, he 
neither laid nor set any thing before each, as he did in 
this case. By all this he wished to intimate, that this 
bread and wine were not mere bread and wine, such as 


944 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


they had used during the Passover; but quite a differ- 
ent, a peculiar, a nobler repast, namely, as he himself 
expressed in his own words, “ His body and his blood.” 

981. Thus we have seen that Matthew and Mark 
agree, and both with simplicity utter the same words, 
with the exception that Matthew subjoins this clause to 
the end of his sentence, ‘‘ for the remission of sins.”’ 
Again, Mark says, speaking of the bread, ‘“ He blessed 
it ;’? while on the contrary the others every where say, 
‘‘ He gave thanks,”’ as Mark himself says, speaking of the 
wine; so that he appears to me to use “ bless” and “ give 
thanks”? in the same sense. This, however, I shall 
leave to those who find pleasure in troubling themselves 
with such niceties. 

382. It is however more necessary to observe, that 
because the Evangelists all so harmoniously set down 
these words in their simplicity,—‘ This is my body,”’— 
any one may conclude that there is certainly no fig- 
ure of speech in them, nor any trope or figure of 
thought. For had there been a trope in the idea, some 
one of them certainly would have indicated it in a letter 
at least, so that a different text or interpretation might 
have ensued. Just as they do on other subjects, where 
one of them frequently inserts, what another omits, or 
expresses it in different words; as Matthew writes, 12, 
28, that Christ said, “If 1 cast out devils by the Spirit 
of God,”? &c., while Luke writes it thus: “If I with 
the finger of God cast out devils,’ Luke 11, 20; and 
where Mark says, ‘‘ One brought forth thirty-fold, one 
sixty-fold, one a hundred-fold,’? Luke says merely, 
« And it brought forth fruit a hundred-fold ;” and there 
are numerous other passages, where one explains an- 
other, or expresses himself differently. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 345 


383, But in this sentence, they harmonize alt the 
time with perfect uniformity, and not one of them suffers 
himself to alter a single letter, as if they would exclaim 
with one consent, ‘ No man can speak differently, with 
greater simplicity, and with greater certainty concern- 
ing it, than thus: ‘This is my body ;?”* though Luke 
and Paul have things far different to say respecting the 
cup, than Matthew. and Mark, as we shall hear. Be- 
cause, then, four witnesses stand before us, and all 
equally agree in their words, we can submit ourselves 
to their testimony, with assurance and security, reposing 
our opinions and belief upon them. For if God says, 
In the mouth of two witnesses there shall be truth, 
Matt. 18, 16, how much stronger should these four wit- 
nesses be, than all the fallacies and loquacity of the Enz 
thusiasts? They dare not assert indeed, that Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, Paul, are not so learned, holy, pious, and 
spiritual, as themselves and their adherents. But if they 
consider the language of these witnesses ambiguous, the 
language of the Enthusiasts must be much more ambig- 
uous, especially since they disagree among themselves, 
not one of their texts being of settled authority, nor 
indeed can it be so. But these four witnesses in their 
texts agree even in every letter. In this manner I speak 
with our adherents. For the Enthusiasts can readily 
reply in all difficulties, because they have no Scripture, 
but they have the boldness to utter the most naked soph- 
istries out of their own imaginations. 

984, The third passage is in St. Luke, 22, 19, 20: 
“δε took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave 
it to them, saying, ‘ This is my body, which is given for 
you; this do in remembrance of me.’ Likewise also, 
the cup after Supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new 


346 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’ ”’ 

28. Whoever is willing to receive instruction, 
will find abundant satisfaction on this subject in St. 
Luke, so forcibly and elegantly does he speak concern- 
ing the Eucharist. First, he describes the last Paschal 
drink of Christ, as above remarked, and says: 

386. ‘He took the cup, gave thanks, and said, ‘Take 
this and divide it among youselves; for I sav unto you, 
{ will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the king- 
dom of God shal! come.’”’ Here Christ testifies that 
this shall be his last drink of wine upon earth with his 
disciples ; but immediately after he gave the cup of wine 
of the new Supper. Now, if there be nothing but mere 
wine in the new Supper, bow is it trae then, that that 
should have been his last drink,—that he will drink no 
more wine? If that was the last drink of wine, this 
then cannot be mere wine, which he afterwards gave to 
drink. If it is not wine, it must be that which he men- 
tions, namely, his blood, or the new testament in his 
blood. Thus St. Luke in this passage powerfully evin- 
ces, that there cannot be mere wine in the holy Supper 
of Christ. 

307. Here you might ask, “ Who knows indeed 
whether Christ spoke these words concerning the last 
drink before or after his Supper? For Luke writes, 
these words he spake before the Supper ; but Matthew 
and Mark write as if he spoke them after the Supper.” 
Well, this question depends upon the circumstance, which 
of the Evangelists observed the true order of events in 
his description. If Luke has observed it, then the dif- 
ficulty is solved, our interpretation is right, and the En- 
thusiasts are defeated,—a conclusion which is indubitable. 
Or, if the Enthusiasts feel any doubts respecting it, we 


. TITE LORD’S SUPPER. 917 
are still certain that we are right, which is enough for us. 

388. Now from appropriate descriptions and events 
in the Evangelists, let us learn which of them observes 
the real order of events in his narrative. St. Luke in 
the commencement of his Gospel, Luke 2, declares that 
he will write from the first and in order, and this he 
proves by his actual observance of the rule; for his Gos- 
pel proceeds elegantly by the due succession of events 
on to the end, as all the world will testify. But Mat- 
thew and Mark have not promised this, neither do they 
follow it, as it would readily appear from numerous pas- 
sages. For instance, where Maithew describes the 
temptation of Christ, Matt. 4, 1, sqq., and the manifes- 
tation of Christ after his resurrection, he does not at 
all observe the order of events; and St. Augustine, 
in his “ Harmony of the Gospels,” spends great labor 
upon these passages. Mark does not observe any his- 
torical order, even in this passage on the Eucharist, 
where he places the clause, “‘ And they all drank of it,” 
before these words, “9 And he said, ¢ This is my blood,’ ἢ 
though !t should have been placed after them, by the 
nature of the events and the order of things. 

389. Because, then, there is no doubt that Matthew 
and Mark do not observe a direct historical order, but 
St. Luke imposes it as a duty upon himself to observe 
it, and actually does so, Matthew and Mark, in their 
writings, must be arranged according to the order of St. 
Luke, and not otherwise. And we must say, that Mat- 
thew and Mark have placed that after the new Supper, 
which actually occurred, and which should be placed, 
alter the Paschal Supper. For they put no great stress 
upon order, it being sufficient for them to speak of the 
event, and the truth of it. But Luke, who wrote after 


948 THE LORD’s SUPPER. ᾿ 

them, declares that one of the motives of his writing was 
to write in historical order, because many other of these 
histories had been written without order. And many be- 
sides are of this opinion, for it is highly probable that 
St. Paul alluded to Luke, when he pointed him out and 
recommended him to the Corinthians, saying, « And we 
have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the 
Gospel throughout all the churches,” 2 Cor. 8, 18. It 
also contributes to strengthen this opinion, that Luke 
with great zeal desired to maintain a due historical or- 
der, ΘΚ he not only placed the last drink, but also 
the whole Passover before the institution of the Lord’s 
Supper, saying : 

390. “And when the hour was come, he sat down, 
and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto 
them, With desire I havé desired to eat this passover 
With you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will 
not any more eat thereof, until it be ful eed in the king- 
dom of God. And he took the cup,” ἅς. Here you 
perceive, that every thing in this text is described in re- 
gular order in reference to the Paschal Supper, both as to 
the eating and drinking,—an order which Matthew and 
Mark do not observe. Now if the last thing done as to 
eating stands here, and should stand, before the institu 
tion of the new Supper, it must also be true that the last 
act in drinking also, should stand before the new insti- 
tution. For they both constitute one Supper, and must 
not be separated from each other. 

391. With this remark, we now come again to the 
argument and conclusion already mentioned. If Luke 
has observed the correct historical order, as we have 
now proved, Christ took the last drink of wine before 
the institution of the Eucharist; but if he took the last 


TNE ΤΟΒῸ 5 SUPPER: 349 


drink of wine before the new Supper, we do not drink 
mere wine in the Lord’s Supper; for his words stand 
obyiously before us, where he says, He will no mare 
after this drink of the frutt of the vine. 

392. In opposition to this, however, some one wi! 
say, “ Yet you have been contending that wine remains 
wine in the new Supper, and here your words render 
you a very excellent Papist, who believes that there is 
no wine in the Eucharist.” I reply, “This is of but 
little concern to me; for as I have often remarked, 1¢ 
shall not be the source of any controversy with me. 
whether the wine remain wine or not. It is enough 
for me, that the blood of Christ is there; let it be with 
the wine as may seem pleasing to God. And sooner 
than have mere wine with the e Enthusiasts, IT would 
agree with the Pope that there is only blood.” 

393. In further explanation, I have said above, “ If 
the wine becomes the blood of Christ, it 1s not merely 
wine, but blood-wine; so that I may point to it and oh 
‘ This is the blood of Christ.’ ”’ Nee is Christ silent 
respecting this, when he says, “1 will drink no more of 
the fruit of the vine.”? Why coes he not say wine, but 
the fruit of the vine? Without doubt because the 
drink which is used in the Eucharist, is not derived from 
the vine like other ordinary wine; and though it also is 
wine, yet it is not produced by vegetating as we now 
have it. As when a person tastes of malmsey mixed 
with a little water, where the water has become so en- 
tirely mingled with the malmsey, as not to be percepti- 
ble to the taste. I can therefore say of this drink, 
‘This water is not from the spring or well.”’? So the 
wine in the Eucharist is no longer the fruit of the vine ; 
for the fruit of the vineis assuredly nothing but mere wine. 


30 


350 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


394. How if Christ did not drink in the institution 
of his Supper, but the disciples only?’ I answer: 
How if a fool can ask more questions than ten wise men 
can answer? It does not stand written, that he par- 
‘ook of the last drink, yet no doubt he did not only give 
it to his disciples, but he drank with them. So the dis« 
ciples after this last drink certainly did not drink any more, 
but restrained themselves, as Christ did, from drinking 
more. Again: “If the disciples, after the last drink, 
did drink the blood of the Lord, without doubt he drank 
of it with thei: ?’? Here again, why should I expose 
myself by answering so ridiculous a question? Let this 
suffice on the first quotation from St. Luke, which ren- 
ders it abundantly clear, that the holy Supper of Christ 
does not consist of the fruit of the vine. If it is not the 
fruit of the vine, it can be nothing less than the blood 
of Christ, agreeably to his words, “ This is my blood.” 

395. In the second place, this clause, ‘‘ which is 
civen for you,”? which Luke and Paul only ingert, some 
Enthusiasts torture, especially the followers of Carlstadt; 
and they pretend that because it stands here written, 
‘which zs given for you,” as a present event, the body 
of Christ cannot be present in the Eucharist, because 
neither at that time nor now could it be said with pro- 
priety, his body ts given for us,”’ or, “his blood 7s 
shed for us.” But in the first Eucharist it should have 
been said, “ Which shall be given for you, ”? and — 
it should be said thus, “ Which was given for you.’ 
O ye sublime spirits! On this point I have worse: 
answered this lady sorceress, in my little book against 
the Heavenly Prophets. 

396. These spirits do not perceive that their foolish 
sophistry operates as strongly against themselves, as 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 351 


against us. For suppose the text of Carlstadt to be 
adopted: “This is my body which is sitting here ;” 
‘this is my blood which is present here.”? How then 
are his body given and his blood shed present here, as 
the words read, “‘ which is given for you,” “ which is 
shed for you??? Now Christ cannot speak that which 
is false, nor speak idly, when he says in the administra- 
tion of the Eucharist, “‘ This is my body, which is given 
for you;” “this is my blood, which is shed for you.” 
Now if the body was not as yet given, nor the blood 
shed, as otherwise it would have to be, how is the reason- 
ing of the Enthusiasts on these wards to be sustained ? 
If in their interpretation of the Eucharist, they can 
maintain both these propositions, namely, ‘‘ ‘That the 
body and blood of Christ were sitting there present, that 
they were not yet given nor shed for us, and still if it be 
true, that he saul, I ¢s the body and blood given and 
shed for us, then, beloved, our interpretation of the 
Eucharist could also justly maintain the same words, 
though Christ is not now given, but was given at 
a time which is past, Read on farther in the same lit- 
tle book, if yau have a desire, 

907, In the third place, we come to this text of St. 
Luke: * This cup is the new testament in my blood, 
which is shed for you;” this text also must suffer, and 
to this day the Enthusiasts are undecided to what ex- 
tent they shall abuse and mutilate this passage. One 
takes up the word new testament ; another the words cn 
my blood, &c.; but no one considers how with Scripture 
and good reason, he may clothe and support his naked 
thoughts and explanations, 

393. We desire to vindicate ourselves also. In the 
first place, Luke and Paul only insert these words,— 


452 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


‘** Do this in remembrance of me,”—and they both in- 
sert them where they are speaking of the bread, ani 
not where they are speaking of the wine. For they 
inaintain that it 15 sufficient for these words to be writ- 
ten once, being equally true, as the reference is to both 
-lements in the Eucharist, and so to the whole Eucha- 
vist, as Paul further explains by saying, “ As often as 
ye eat this bread and drink this wine, ye do show the 
Lord’s death,” 1 Cor. 11, 26. This they do there- 
fore as an evidence of the importance and fruit of the 
holy Supper, namely, that we should praise God and give 
thanks to him, for our deliverance from sin and death ; 
as the Jews were bound to praise and thank him for their 
liberation from the land of Egypt. On this subject 
should we speak and write, instead of beng drawn by 
_ the Enthusiasts into these angry controversies. 
~ 399. Both Luke and Paul insert these words also in 
connection with the cup: ‘ Likewise also the cup 
after supper; or, after they had taken their re- 
past. Why this? I truly believe it was all for 
the sake of future Enthusiasts, as if Luke would point 
back by that word, as with his finger, and refer to 
the last drmk. As if he would say, ‘ Remember what 
Τ᾿ said concerning the last drink, that Christ will drink 
no more of the fruit of the vine, in order that you may 
know that I speak here in reference to a different drink, 
which was taken after the supper, when they all had 
iinished drinking of the fruit of the vine, and do not 
misunderstand this drink for that, but consider it a drink 
at the commencement of the new Supper.”? Moreover, 
LLuke and Paul say this more especially in connection 
with the cup, and not with the bread; for it was more 
natural and necessary to connect it with the cup, because 


rr rm me [--- -- -ὕ-. OO Ee rr wre 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 905 
it is not usual for one to eat at the conclusion, but to 
drink, so that it might not be understood in reference to 
the last drink at the conclusion of the Passover, though 
it is equally applicable to both elements and to the whole 
Kucharist, like the clause quoted above concerning the 
remembrance, &c. 

400. We shall suffer them to rant and explain here 
as they like. Of this we are quite certain, that Luke in 
this text, — This cup ts the new testament in my blocd,— 
does not intend to say any thing different, but the very 
same which Matthew and Mark say in this text, This 
zs my blood of the new testament. For they cannct be 
different from each other, but they must coincide in 
sense. Now construe this text of Luke as you will, the 
sense must be, that Mark and Matthew say, This 7s 
my blocd of the new testament. If we thus construe 
the words of Luke, so that they give us in the Eucha- 
rist the blood of Christ for the new testament, as Mark 
and Matthew do, we assuredly have the correct mean- 
ing. But whoever will construe it differently, or tor- 
ture the text, does not have it right. For in this way 
he will not agree with the others. 

401. Hence it follows, that they are great dolts, 
who would conclude from these words of Luke, that the 
cup must stand in blood, if we take the words literally 
as they read; because he says, ‘‘ This cup is the new 
testament 7n my blood.”’ For they imagine that in my 
blood here must be taken in the same sense as a peasant in 
his boots, or meat in the pot, notwithstanding they have to 
acknowledge that this meaning cannot be accommodated 
to Mark and Matthew, and yet indeed these Evangelists 
cannot be at variance with each other. 

402. But Luke speaks, as he is often accustomed to 


304 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


co, according to the Hebrew idicm; for in this manner 
we find expressions in the Hebrew language, as Psalm 
73, 64, Their priests fell in the swerd; that is, 
** Their priests fell by the sword.” Again: The prin- 
ces were hung tn their hands, that is, by their hands, 
Lam. 4. Again: We drink our water in money, that 
is, for money. Again: The children fell in the wocd, 
that is, under the wood, which they were obliged to 
carry. Again, in Hosea, Jacod served in Rachel, that 
is, for Rachel; see also Gen. 29, 20, with many ex- 
amples of a similar kind. Thus you perceive that in in 
Hebrew has a quite comprehensive meaning, yet, so as to 
show that the thing must be present to which it relates. 

403. In this way Luke expresses himself: ‘ This 
cup 1s the new testament in the blood of Christ ;”? that 
is, through the blocd, or with the blood, or on account 
of the blood, κε. Under a similar form is the expres- 
sion of Matthew, ‘ This is my blood of the new testa- 
ment.’? For the cup cannot be the new testament, in 
silver, or by silver, or on account of silver. Now 
express these words as you like, Thzs cup is the new 
festament in the blocd, so as not to speak in opposition 
to Matthew and Mark. For to a mid and well dis- 
posed spirit, it is soon told by saying, that the words of 
Luke in German are equivalent to this: ‘‘ This cup isa 
new testament, not in consequence of its fine silver, or 
of its wine, but in consequence of the blood of Christ.”’ 
So that a German might interpret the text of St. Luke 
Without any aid, or by his own good sense, thus: “ This 
cup is the new testament on account of the blood of 
Christ,’ which every one would understand thus: “The 
cup 15 the new testament, in consequence of the blood of 
Christ.” 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. τ Σ᾿ 


404. I have been under the necessity of pursuing 
ihis subject so far, in order to render the text of St. 
Luke clear; for, with the exception that he speaks after 
the manner of the Hebrews, the idea is expressed by him 
in a manner entirely clear and simple, and it accords al- 
together with that of Matthew and Mark, except that 
Luke constructs his sentence in the Hebrew mode. For 
Matthew says according to the Greek idiom, “ This is 
my blood of the new testament :᾽ Luke says according 
to the Hebrew idiom, ‘‘ This is the new testament in 
my blood.”? Now the new testament in my blood, and 
my blood of the new testament, are expressions by no 
means opposed to each other, but the very same in terms 
and signification, only the words are differently arranged, 
which results from the nature of the Hebrew language, 
as the learned well know. And in order to avoid all 
error, I translate the text of Luke in the briefest and 
most expressive manner, thus: ‘‘ This cup is the new 
testament in my blood.”? Although Luke does not in- 
sert the word zs, but says thus: ‘* This cup the new 
_ testament in my blood.” But if any one likes, he can 
use the word zs twice, in this manner: “This ἦς the 
cup, which zs the new testament in my blood.’’ But 
because Paul], who introduces these words of St. Luke, 
uses only one zs, saying, “‘ This cup is the new testa- 
ment in my blood,” the text of Luke certainly ought 
then to be translated with one zs. 

405. But Luke and St. Paul, in strictly observing 
the Hebrew mode of expression, in this passage, please 
me better than Matthew and Mark, who have expressed 
themselves in the Grecian idiom, since it enables us to 
have the words of Christ with greater precision, and to 
oppose future sects. For they acknowledge themselves 


356 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


how powerfully Luke and Paul with their text have 
overthrown the τουτὸ of Carlstadt. And let him who 
is not aware of this, read my little book against the 
Heavenly Prophets. But as they have overthrown the 
τουτο Of Carlstadt, so they have also overthrown that 
of the Silesians, Krautwald and Schweinfeld, who trans- 
pose this zovzo, and place it near the end, as we have 
seen above, saying, ““ My body which is given for you, 
is this, namely, a spiritual food.” 

406. Well, because St. Luke here inserts the word 
τουτο in connection with the cup, saying, “* Thés cup,”’ 
let them suffer this text also to be reversed, and say, 
“This new testament in my blood, which was shed for 
you, is this cup, namely, a spiritual drink.’ What do 
you think of this? A material cup is a spiritual drink ! 
Beloved, what opinion would St. Luke have formed of 
these Enthusiasts, if they thus invert his language ? 
He would have taken them for people who believe that 
a silver or golden cup is a spiritual drink. This would 
seem to me a strange spirit, which desires to quaff and 
swallow up a material, silver, golden cup; let him not 
come to me, he would soon drink up my money and gold, 
and I would sustain him with much greater difficulty 
than the whole host of Popery, and he would swallow 
up more gold, without the mass, than the Papacy with 
the mass. 

407. Behold, this is the way these inconsiderate 
spirits act, who suppose that if they can give their fan- 
tasies a color in one place or passage, it will do quite 
well in every respect, and they never take the trouble 
to consider how it can be accommodated to other pas- 
sages. For as in Mark and Matthew they can say, 
© My body is this; my blood is this; namely, spiritual 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 307 


food and spiritual drink,’’ because they find only the 
word zovzo standing by itself, they wish to apply this 
all around according to their own fancy, like those des- 
cribed in Daniel with Susanna, perverting and mutilating 
each passage with a false meaning. But they did not 
in the meantime attend to Luke, and reflect that they 
will be thus inverted by his text with their sophistry ; 
so that they become entrapped in their vicious exertions 
with great infamy to themselves. 

408. This accords with Psalm 18, 26: “ With the 
froward thou wilt show thyself froward.”’? They pre- 
sume to change the word of God from a material refer- 
ence to a spiritual one, and in doing so, they change 
their own views from the spiritual to the material. For 
the text of Luke manifestly exhibits its covzo, and refers 
by it to the material cup, saying, This cup, so that it 
is impossible to refer τουτοὸ here to a spiritual drink. 
On the contrary, the Enthusiasts appear with their per- 
version, and assert that vovzo must signify spiritual 
drink. Then either Luke or the Enthusiasts must evi- 
dently be false and treacherous. But if this word τοντὸ 
in connection with cup cannot be so inverted, and trans- 
formed into a spiritual τοῦτο, still less can the word 
τουτο Standing in connection with the word bread ; and 
the Silesian zovzo thus lies as deep in the mire, as that 
of Carlstadt. But when will the Enthusiasts once show 
any signs of shame, though caught in their falsehoods so 
frequently ? 

409.. Next in order, C£colampadius must also 
with his emblem be brought before the judicial chair 
of St. Luke. Body and blood,” says he, “are 
figures in the Eucharist, and mean sign of body, 
sign of blood,” If this is true, doubtless the word 


358 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


blood in Luke must also be a figure, that is, the sign of 
blood ; for he is certainly speaking of the same blood as 
Matthew and Mark speak of, which no one can deny. 
Well, so the text of St. Luke must also undergo the in- 
terpretation of G&colampadius: ‘ This cup is a new tes- 
tament in the sign of my blood, namely, in mere wine.”’ 
This will be a most exquisite thing, if the new testa- 
ment is nothing more than a drink of wine, or a drink 
of wine has the power to make this cup a new testa- 
ment; for the text of Ecolampadius does give and will 
give this result. 

410. Let us take the new testament here as we may, 
it is undoubtedly set in contrast to the old testament, 
because it is called the new; hence it must have the 
spiritual blessings in it, which are predicted and promised 
by the Old Testament, and which are dispensed and ful- 
filled in the New ;—this no one will controvert. But 
what Christian heart can suffer it to be said, that our 
new testament is only a drink of wine? Or that this 
cup is a new testament in consequence of a drink of 
wine? For Gicolampadius suffers the word zs to stand 
as it reads; hence according to his reasoning, the new 
testament can be nothing else than the miserable cup,” 
and the same testament nothing except in the strength, 
and on account, of the wine, as a sign of the blood of 
Christ. In this way, it would be well to understand all 
figures in the old testament as meaning the new tes- 
tament, because they all are such signs. 

411, Butifhe willsay, “ The text must stand thus: . 
‘This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood,’ 
so that the trope is not here in the blood, but in the new 
testament ;’? wherefore does he not reduce the whole to 
a sign, a mere trope, and say, “ The figure of the cup, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 359 


is the figure of the new testament in the figure of my 
blood: that is, the painted cup is an emblem of the new 
testament, through the sign of my blood, that is, on ac- 
count of the wine.”? Oh, what a beautiful idea! Who 
will furnish a reason, why one Word, and not all the 
others, must be figurative ? 

412. But let us permit him to construe by tropes 
this text, thus: ‘ This cup is the sign of the new testa 
ment in my blood,” in order that blood here may not be 
a trope, but the true blood, and in doing this he will be 
completely ensnared. _ In the first τ by this con- 
struction he acknowledges, that in the Eucharist the 


blood mentioned in Luke is not a figure, but the true _ 


blood of Christ. Here then we ask, why does he re- 
gard it as a trope in Matthew and Mark? How can it 
be said that Luke specifies a different blood from that 
mentioned by Matthew and Mark? Ifin Luke it is the 
true blood of Christ, it must be so also in Mark and 
Matthew; for they are undoubtedly speaking of the 
same Eucharist, and consequently they must be speak- 
ing of the same blood and drink. Shift yourself as you 
may, if blood in Matthew and Mark 15 a trope, it must 
be a trope also in Luke; if it is not in Luke, it cannot 
be a trope in Matthew and Mark. But if blood is not 
a trope, bread also cannot be one. And thus Luke anni- 
hilates every trope with his own words, and brings it 
into disgrace. Thus the fate of the trope is similar to 
that of zovvo,—it destroys itself. 

413. In the second place, it is still more shameful, 
that this text,—‘ This cup is a sign of the new testa- 
ment in my blood,’”’—admits the true blood of Christ 
to be in the cup, and effects no more than to assert 
that this cup is by this means a sign or figure of the new 


eee eee 


“ 
BY ss 
360 THE LORD'S SUPPER: 
< 
testament. This is not different from saying, that the 
cup with the blood of Christ is a figure of the new tes- 
tament. And thus the blood of Christ cannot give us 
the new testament, but serves only as a sign of the new 
testament, no better than did the Paschal lamb or ram’s 
blood in the old testament, which also is a figure or 
sion of the new testament. For we have heard above, 
that this expression, in my blood, is of equal force with 
by or with my blood, so that it be present in the cups 
and the cup therefore is a new testament, because it has 
the blood of Christ in it. 

414, This is elegant imagery, and it does great 
honor to the blood of Christ, that it is considered equal 
to the blood of rams; that it is to be a figure of the new 
testament, and we must be under the New Testament, and 
stillat thesame time under the Old Testament dispensation. 
For whoever has a figure of the new testament, can- 
not also have the new testament itself, as the Epistle 
to the Hebrews*teaches. But from this text of CEéco- 
lampadius, if indeed he maintains it, we at the same 
time would have the new testament, and we would 
not have it. For we at the same time should have the 
ἤρατο of the new testament, and the new testament 
itself, which is the same thing as to say, we should have 
the blood of Christ, and not his blood. 

415. Besides, it cannot be admitted that “ new 
testament’? isa trope. By what reasoning should this 
be proved? Where is there any example of this? 
Where, indeed, would the common forms of expression 
remain, by which I am accustomed, or perhaps obliged 
to speak simply of the new testament, if an emblem or 
a figure must be understood, as often as I mention the 
new testament? In this way the new testament 


ν 


THE-LORD’S SUPPER. 361 


would not be the Gospel, or promise of the Spirit, or 
life everlasting, bat an old figure or image of a future 
new testament. And in short, a trope will never ap- 
ply to the expression “new testament,”? much less can 
it be proved by any substantial reason. So that (co- 
lampadius remains at his first text. where blood is a 
trope, saying, “ This cup is a new testament in the sign 
of my blood,” which text, however, our Creed can never 
ΠΕΣ κᾶν οὐ mere wine should convert this cup into a 
new testament 

410. For the new testament is the promise, indeed 
more, the dispensation of grace, and the remission of 
sins, that is, it is the true Gospel. For although the 
cup is a material thing, yet because it bees ἃ 
sacramental thing witht ee blood of Christ, or with the new 
testament, it may reasonably be called a new testament, 
er the blood, so that one might point to it, and say, 
“< This is a new testament ; this is the blood of Christ ;”’ 
just as the material fiame meptioned above, 15 a spiritual 
thing, namely, it is the angel, and is called so, and the 
dove is the Holy Ghost. Hance whoever drinks of this 
cup, really drinks the true blood of Christ, and the re- 
mission of sins, or the Spirit of Christ, which is received 
in and with the cup, and there is not received here sim- 
ply a figure or sign of the new testament, or of the 
blood of Christ, for this can be said of the Jews only 
in the old testament. | 

417. But if some one would seek a subterfuge, and 
pretend that (icolampadius might construe his text thus: 
“This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood,” 
so that the blood must not relate to the cup, but to the 
testament, with this signification, “‘ The new testament 


is in the blood of Christ, and consists in the blood ot 
31 


362 THE LORD'S SUPPER: 


Christ,” and not thus, “ The cup in consequence of the 
blood of Christ is a sign or figure,” as if the literal 
meaning of his text were expressed thus, ‘ This cup is 
a sign of the new testament; but the new testament is 
a thing, which consists in the blood of Christ.” I an- 
swer: Ctcolampadius knows well, that this text cannot 
be admitted here; for in Greek an article must stand 
after “new testament,” thus: Καινη διαθηχῆ, ἡ εὟ τὼ 
ματι μον. This article, however, isnot there, but the 
text is intimately connected like a single, inseparable 
word, just as the cup, blocd, new testament, are 
combined, as if it were a single indivisible essence ; 
so that the sense must be, ‘This cup is a new tes- 
tament in my bloods” that is, “on account of my 
blood, the cup is such a thing, and without my blood it 
would not be so.’’ 

418. Now as Ccolampadius must here succumb 
with his trope or emblem, so must Zwinglius also suc- 
cumb with his figure. For whatever is opposed to an 
emblem, is also opposed to a figure, because there is very 
little difference between them. For the text of Zwin- 
vlius would have to stand thus: ‘ This cup signifies the 
new testament in my blood,’? which would be equal to 
saying, ‘This cup has, in consequence of my blood 
which is within it, sufficient power to represent on that 
account the new testament;’’ and thus the blood of 
Christ would be no more than a mere figure, as I have 
proved above in reference to the emblem of Gicolampa- 
dius. Εν Zwinglius also cannot construe the text thus: 
“This cup signifies the new testament, which is in my 
blood,” because the article is not in the original, but the 
whole text forms as it were but one word, as has been 


said. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. $63 


419. Now, is not St. Luke a malignant being, who 
with a single word, by one blow so to say, strikes huge 
giants and heroes, advocates of τουτο, of figures, and of 
emblems, and all the Enthusiasts, into one mass? And 
what aid would it be to them, even if they could main- 
tain their texts in reference to emblems and figures? 
Still they would not be able to show the slightest shadow 
of a similitude, in which this emblem or figure might con- 
sist, as we have heard above in reference to the trope of 
GScolampadius. For in what respect is the cup in con- 
sequence of the blood of Christ similar to the new testa- 
ment? Does it consist in this, that even as our sins are 
forgiven by the cup, so they are also thereby forgiven 
to the blood cf Christ? Or where shall we find these 
ficures? In some dark corner. Why then do they 
teach fioures, where there can be no figures? 

420. But Luke uses an expression in this text which 
no other Evangelist uses, not even St. Paul; namely, 
“ Der fiir euch vergossen wird,” and not, “ Das fir 
euch vergossen wird ;”’ for in Greek the expression has 
reference to the cup, and not to the blood, which no one 
ean deny ;—7ovzo to ποτήριον, &C., ἐκχυνομενον, and not, 
ἐν TO ALUATL, &e., EXYVVOUEVOY, In Latin* one cannot 
observe the distinction, if it be said, Οὐ pro vobis fun- 
ditur, because cup and blood in Latin are both of the 
masculine gender, but in German it may be readily no- 
ticed, in which b/ood is neuter, and cup is masculine. 
Some three or four years ago, an elegant scholar and 
learned pastor of a village, mentioned this to me, 
and laid before me his view of the passage, saying that 
St. Luke ought to be understood thus: ‘This cup, 


—— a 


* This is also the case in English, 


ἕ ᾿ 
904 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


which is poured out for you, is the new testament in my 
blood ;”? that is, which at the table is poured cut for 
YOu, od set before you to drink, as one on other occa- 
sions pours out wine Jrom the vessel for the guests. 
And he assigned it as one of his reasons, that Luke, as 
observed, cee not speak concerning ae bleod, like 
Matthew and Mark, but concerning the eup,—exzvvoz- 
ἐνὸν, 15 Shed, poured. And in iter proof, he cited 
the text of St. Paul: “ This is my body, which is bro- 
ken for you;” that is, divided out and laid before you 
on the table.* 

421. As I discovered that the opinions of this man 


—— 


“It would appear that the sense here first suggested by the vil- 
lage pastor, has since been universally adopted, for Spencer, in 
his annotation on the passagein St. Luke, admits that exzvvouevor, 
poured out, agrees with ποτήριον, cup, and then dismisses the ex- 
pression without further remark. That exyvvouevov Should be 
translated poured out, is ie evident both from the etymology 
oi the werd, and from tha context. The radical verb yvw equal to 
Lit, has ¢o pour for its literal meaning; consequently, compounded 
with the preposition @<, ovt, it signifies poured out. Some very 
strangely have imagined a solecism in the idea of a cup being 
poured out, forgetting that cuzp is here a metonomy for blood or 
wine, the container for the thing contained, and that in all similar in- 
stances, the same thing may be predicated of the figurative, which 
can be of the literal term; and, notwithstanding the numerous instan- 
ces of grammatical solecisms, as he calls them, which Krebsius 
adduces, if pouring out a cup is a solecism, then instances of sole-~ 
cisms in all languages are infinitely more numerous than those of 
strict Zog’cal propricty. The rules of grammar are deduced from 
custom; but that must be an unfortunate rule, the eustomary ex- 
ceptions to which are more numerous than the examples. It is 


sufficient, however, that we have the instances which Krebsius 


adduces to sustain the view which Luther has here for the first 
time indicated. Nothing can convey stronger evidence to the mind 
than these instances, that the usual custom of rendering ἐκ χινυομεγοῦ 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 365 


differed from those of the Enthusiasts, and acknowledged 
that the real body and blood of Christ are present in the 
Eucharist, I was rejoiced indeed, and felt much pleased 
with his interpretation, except that I deemed it unnec- 
essary, because there was no danger in the old interpre- 
tation; and £ would be pleased at the present day, and 
earnestly desire, that this interpretation could be 
proved from the Greek text. For this would most ef- 
fectually stop the mouth of every £nthusiast. I enter- 
tain not the least doubt, that the text of Paul, “ This 
is my bedy, which is brcken for you,’’ is simply to be 


by shed is wrong, not only in Luke and Paul, but even in Matthew 
and Mark. 

By comparing the passages in the original, it will be seen, that 
Christ predicates the same thing of the cup that he does of his 
blood,—- ro exxvvoucroy agreeing in gender, number, and case, 
with asua, blced, in Matthew and Mark, and with wortypice, 
exp, in Luke;—hence it would strictly follow that czp is used by 
metonomy for blood, and that he means by it the container of his 
blood, which is poured out at table. ‘The passage in Luke, literail 

endered word by word, would read thus in English: “This cup, 
the new testament in my bicod, is poured out for you.’? That in 
Mark, thus: “ This is my b!ced, the (blocd) of the new testament, 
which is poured out for many.?’ Evidently implying, though net 
expressly saying so, as Luther afterwards remarks, that as this 
cup of wine, unlike the former cf that evening, was poured out for 
many, so his own blood would be poured out of the cross for many. 
This view of the subject, independent of philological reasons, is so 
rational, so simple, and so beautiful, that it mst be true. It is 
calculated in a moment to give repose to all that absurd perplexity, 
that ineffectual toil, which some quite recently have experienccd, 
in laboring to reconcile the expression ἐδ shed in the present tense, 
though spoken at the last Supper, with the future sufferings of our 
Lord. Every difficulty vanishes at once before the expressions, 
the blood—the cup— is poured out for you—/or many—for the re- 
mission of sins.—[ TRANS. 


Ge 


a 


366 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


understood in reference to breaking and distributing the 
bread at the table, as he says also, 1 Cor. 10,16: “ The 
bread, which we break, is the communion of the body of 
Christ.” 

422. Because then the text in Paul, which speaks 
concerning the bread or the body of Christ, is to be uu- 
derstood concerning the distribution at table, and not 
concerning his subjection to the cross, the text also con- 
cerning the cup will undoubtedly admit a stmilar inter- 
pretation. And Matthew and Mark also would be 
justly so construed, namely, where they say, “ This is 
any body ;”’ in connection with which they do not speak 
concerning the giving, as it would be otherwise easily 
perceived that he gave them his body when he said, 
** This is my body 5” that is, “ here you have my body.” 
"fhus also concerning the cup, ** This ismy blood, poured 
out for you;” that is, “‘ which 15 divided out at table, 
und placed before you, for the forgiveness of sins.” I 
alo not see any thing in the words themselves, much 
opposed to this sense. For St. Paul also, in connection 
with the cup, leaves out the expression, “ which is shed 
for you,” presuming that if he said the bread was bre- 
‘en for them, they would have sufficient reason to infer 
that the cup also was divided cut to them. 

423. Although this sense has as yet not been main- 
tained, but every one has understood the text as refer- 
ring to his body being given up to death, and concerning 
this blood being shed on the cross, there was no danger- 
cous error in this, nor would there be at present; for no 
one would commit sin in believing the body and blood 
of Christ given and shed for us on the cross, though he 
may do it in a passage in which it has not been 
anentioned, provided there be no contradiction; even 


= 
? 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 367 


as the ancient Fathers have often and without danger, 
introduced passages of Scripture on inappropriate sub- 
jects, though in an excellent and useful sense. It ap- 
pears to me indeed, that some of the ancient Fathers 
also have had this view of the expression before us, 
where they say, that the blood of Christ is shed as 
often as the Eucharist is administered. Especially 
Ambrose, where he says: ‘‘Since as often as the 
blood of Christ is poured out, it is poured out for 
the forgiveness of sins, therefore I should receive 
it daily, because I sin daily.”? Fer the word funditur 
does not only mean zs shed, but also is poured out. 
Gregory also says, ‘‘ The blood of Christ is poured into 
ihe mouth of believers.” 

424, I do not speak this as being fully established 
in this opinion, but because I would be happy to find 
it so; for that of which I am not well assured myself, I 
will not teach to others; and since I am not so deeply 
versed in Greek, I mention this in order that I may give 
occasion to the learned to investigate the subject fully, 
and determine whether the Greek text would admit it; 
and thus the Enthusiasts would have no pretext or sub- 
terfuge against our interpretation. They would have 
to acknowledge, that the body and blood of Christ are 
divided out at table, and are received and drunk bodily 
in the bread and wine. 

425. As for my own part, I would assert, that 
Luke and Paul, to my mind, convey this signification: 
Paul, from the fact, that he says, as already observed, 
“This is my body, broken for you,” and, ‘‘ The bread 
which we break, is the communion of the body of the 
Lord.” So we find numerous other passages, in which 
Pau] uses ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, for us, instead of coram vel ante, 


908 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


as 1 Cor. 15, ‘‘ Why are they then baptized for the 
dead?” Luke, from the fact that he says, The cup in 
the blood is poured out, also using ὑπερ υμων, that is, for 
you, poured out to drink, before your eyes. And also 
from the fact, that he says, “The body which is given 
for you,’ as Paul also says. Now, giving certainly 
means bestowing something, and not committing some- 
thing to death. 

426. But Matthew and Mark would appear to have 
a contrary view, where they say, ‘ This is my blood 
shed, or poured out, for many.”’ ‘This reads as if Christ 
spoke of many who were not present at the table; and 
they do not say vxcp yuo, but πολλων; I will leave this 
to be determined by those who understand the Greek 
language. Whoever may feel a preference for the sig- 
nification here indicated, might reason in the following, 
or a similar manner:—That Luke and Paul speak of 
pouring out or giving, but they announce the shed- 
ding of blood on the cross, by saying, we should do 
this in remembrance of him, or, to commemorate his 
death, as they speak more in order and more distinctly 
than Matthew and Mark. 

427, On the contrary, Matthew and Mark speak of 
the shedding of blood on the cross, and they are silent 
in reference to pouring out the wine at table, which they 
had indicated quite plainly by the word ¢Azs; since we 
know it to be customary with the Evangelists, for one 
of them to speak more at large in reference to any par- 
ticular subject than another, and for one te omit what ar- 
other relates. And thus the expression, which ts given 
for you, would not have so plain and evident a refer- 
ence to the suffering of Christ as Zwinglius imagines, 
who with this view wishes to explain the preceding 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 369 


clause,— This is my body,’’—as we have heard. 

428. But whoever does not feel inclined to this 
opinion, might reason as follows:—The cup is poured 
out for us, as Luke says, because the cup, and blood, 
and new testament, are one sacramental essence 3 1n con- 
sequence of this individuality, the cup is said to be poured 
out, while only the blood is poured out, speaking by the 
figure synecdoche, as we have remarked above, that it is 
properly said of the Son of God, that he died, although 
his humanity only died; and that the Holy Ghost was 
seen, although the dove only was seen; and that the 
angel was seen, although his lucid form only was seen. 
If any one regards this explanation meagre and super- 
ficial, let him give a better one, or suffer the significa- 


tion referred to, tc maintain its place. I believe this to- 


be correct, and that we have answered sufficiently ; for 
we also see and drink the cup, that is, the blood of 
Christ. We feel under no apprehensions; but we have 
on all sides the advantage, whichever opinion we may 
adopt; they are both good and correct; for they both 
refer to a historical fact, namely, that the body of Christ 
is given both at the table and on the cross: if we do not 
strike upon the right passage of Scripture, as has oc- 
curred to many of the saints, we nevertheless do not 
miss the sense and the truth. But all the burden lies 
upon the Enthusiasts; for if this signification is not the 
true one in this text, they still have nothing better in 
their arguments ; but if it is the true sense, they he en- 
tirely prostrate in ashes. 

429. The fourth and last passage referred to, is that 
of St. Paul, who says, 1 Cor. 11, 25-25: “41 have re- 
ceived of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto 
you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he 


370 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given 
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my 
body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance 
of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, 
when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new tes- 
tament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in 
remembrance of me.’’ 

430. Were I as learned in the Greek language as 
Carlstadt and Zwinglius, I would prove from this text 
with great force, that the real body of Christ is eaten in 
the bread. For Erasmus shows, that in Greek there is 
no zs standing in connection with bread ; but it reads 
thus: φαγέτε, τοῦτο ἐμοῦ) capa; comedite, hoc meum 
corpus ; and this I would translate thus: Wehmet, es- 
seé diesen meinen Leib, der ftir euch gebrochen wird ; 
Take, eat this my body, which is broken for you.” 
This would be a correct translation verbatim, with the 
exception that I omit a little pot, or comma, which 
would be of little consequence; and thus I would gain 
the controversy completely. But now, not being so 
learned, I must let it pass, for fear of mistaking an 
article for a pronoun, or imagining an /loésis, and fall 
into the fallacy called caswm pro casu. 

431. Itis, however, true, that Matthew and Mark 
have very imperfectly described the Lord’s Supper, and 
we must therefore remark, that were it not for Luke 
and Paul, we should have no Eucharist. For Matthew 
and Mark have not written, that Christ commanded us 
to do this afterwards, and to administer it thus. And 
then we should have to let it rest, as any other transac< 
tion of Christ with his disciples, which we could not or 
must not repeat. But Luke and Paul write, that Christ 
commanded us all to do this also, Indeed, if it were 


ἈΠῈ LORD'S SUPPER. . 371 


not for Paul, even Luke would not be sufficient author- 
ity, as he might be understood expressing the com- 
mand only in reference to the Apostles, that they should 
repeat this in imitation of Christ. Unless the last chap- 
ter of Matthew would indicate something to this effect, 
when Christ says, Teach them to observe all that I 
have commanded unto you. But whether this would 
be sufficient or not, I am not prepared to say. Paul is 
the proper teacher and apostle sent among us heathens, 
who expresses himself freely and copiously on this sub- 
ject, and says: “ Take, eat: this is my body, which is 
broken for you.” 5 

32. For he inserts the word my immediately after 
the word ¢hzs,—a thing which not one of the others do. 
Besides, as some texts would reau, he omits the little 
word zs, as Luke also omits it in connection with the 
cup. And by these two circumstances, the Holy Ghost 
intimates to us the confirmation of our opinion, making 
us assured that the body of Christ is in the bread. For 
although it is equally the same with us, whether we say 
This is my body, or, This my body, or, My body here; 
yet it is more expressive and more certain as to the pres- 
ence of the body, if Tsay, This my body, or, My body 
here ; and sectarians with their enthusiasm cannot prac- 
tise their sophistry so easily on this, as they can 
on the sentence, ‘ This is my body.” 

433. Now there is no doubt that Christ spoke these 
words in contrast with the old Paschal lamb, which he 
abrogates by this institution, as if he would say: “ Hith- 
erto ye have been eating the lamb, and the body of an 
animal; but here is now my body instead of that—my, 
my body, quite a different thing.” For this reason, 
Paul insists so strongly upon the word my, that he im- 


372 . THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


mediately afier it, by a new turn of expression, inserts 
the word ¢his, and says, This my, as if he would like 
to unite them, so that the my might become one word 
with the word ¢his; and still my and body must far 
more intimately belong together. He does all this, in 
order that he may with abundant clearness express the 
presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist. 

434, ‘ Which is broken for you;’’ of this we have 
spoken a great deal already, showing that the Scripture 
cannot admit the word broken here to refer to the suf- 
fering of Christ. The Enthusiasts might reason here, 
as they make many other assertions, however without 
offering any proof; for we must not explain or use the 
word broken according to our own fancies, but accord- 
ing te Scripture usage. Now indeed in Scripture, the 
word broken, especially where it is used in reference to 
bread or to eating, has a meaning equivalent to cutting 
in pieces, or distributing ; so that this droken bread, 15 
called in Greek, Latin, and German, Κλασμα, fragmen- 
tum, Brocken. Indeed even in Hebrew, in conse- 
quence of this breaking, corn is called Scheber, that 
is, Brocken, bread. Gen. 42,1: ‘ Jacob saw that there 
was Scheber in Egypt;”’ that is, food or corn; because it 
is that which one breaks for eating ; and after this, buying 
corn was called Schabar: as we should say, Wir wodlen 
Gebrockt holen ; thatis, we will go fer feed. Put the 
body of Christ was not broken or divided oh the cross, 
of which more has been said above. So, this text is 
now clear, that the body of Christ is broken, distributed 
and eaten at the table, like other bread, though under 
the form of bread, or in the bread. 

435. And even if it could be proved that breaking 
should here signify the suffering of Christ, beloved, in 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 373 


what will the similitude consist, that in the Eucharist 
the bread should be a sign of the body of Christ? For 
I have admitted above, that they might make the broken 
bread a similitude in whatever way theycould. Butsince 
they separate bretking from the bread, and refer it to the 
body of Christ on the cross, tell me in what respect then 
is the bread a similitude of his body? Not in any other 
way, than as [ have said above, the bread must be said 
to resemble the body of Christ, while in no respect does 
it resemble the body, in the sense which is required in 
the Lord’s Supper. 

436. Further: ‘ This cup, the new testament, is in 
my blood.”’ Now it is possible for this text to imply 
as much as to say, This cup ts a new testament, &e-. 
Yet Paul, indeed, not without reason, has placed the 
word zs after the words new testament, and not before 
them. The Holy Ghost intended here to anticipate fu- 
ture sects. For St. Paul makes cach part of his sub 
ject,—namely, the cup and the new testament,—as one 
subject ; that is, his text reads thus: That this cup, 
which is a new testament, shall be the new testament 
in the blood of Christ, and thus he expressly calls the 
cup the new testament. If the Enthusiasts had as many 
texts in their faver, as we have in our favor, how they 
would swell and boast! Now the new testament cannot 
be merely wine, or Simply a cup. 

437. But the Enthusiasts wish to pretend that 
new testament should mean a sien or figure of the new 
testament, and this has already been fully and cogently 
answered. ‘This they affirm, but they do not prove it. 
But upon their assertion we can place no value. For 
it is never seen in the Scripture, that new testament 
should mean a sign of the new testament. But if they 


oe 


374 THE LORD’s SUPPER) 


say that the subject naturally requires it, I ask, what 

port of it? ‘They say, ‘‘ The cup must be a material 

thing, as silver, wood, gold, or glass. Now silver, in- 

deed, cannot be the new testament; but if it 15 any part. 
of it, then it is the sign of it: more it cannot be.” We 

have answered this above, on the passage from Luke. 

438. But since they are so obstinate and inflexible, 
I will also use their subterfuge. ‘Tell me, how can the 
cup be a sign of the new testament, if it is notwithstand- 
ing merely silver or wood? Is it a sign of the new tes- 
tament according to its substance, its sound, or its form, 
or in what respect? ‘Then every cup, whether it be in 
the chest, at the jeweller’s, or wherever it may be, 
whether it be full or empty, it nevertheless would be the 
sign of the new testament; for it consists of silver, or of 
lass, it has a sound and a form. What need then had 
Christ to mention fits cup at table for this purpose, as 
if no other cup in the world were compesed of silver, or 
possessed sound and form—that is, the sign of the new 
testament? ‘ No,” say they, “as that cup was set 
before you, filled with wine, it then becomes a sign of 
the new testament.”’ 

439. Only attend once to two of their contrivances. 
‘The first consists in arbitrarily making a new unity and 
substance out of cup and wine, notwithstanding they are 
iwo different substances quite distinct in their nature ; 
and then they presume to name this new substance cup 
and sign, although they mean not only the cup, but es- 
pecially the wine in connection with it, as we have said 
above respecting the flame and the angel. Now if 
among them they can allow themselves to say, The cup 
is ἃ sign, though they mean not only the cup, but the 
wine in connection with it, since it has now become one 


THE LORD’s SUPPER. 370 


thine with the cup, ard cannot suffer this union of 
cup and wine to be divided, and the cup or the wine 
to be called a sign; we therefore entreat them to al- 
low the Holy Ghost to speak thus with us on his own 
matters, that he cal] the cup a testament, and show us 
that in consequence of it, it is not only a cup, but with 
the testament and the blood of Christ, it has become a 
sacramental substance; or else exhibit arguments and 
reasons to us, why they have power to speak thus 
among themselves, and why the Hoiy Ghost should not 
have this power. | 

440. ‘They abuse us, because we call the cup a 
new testament, and sever for us the cup from the 
new testament, and divide this sacramental union; we 
therefore, on our part, divide their sign, and we sever 
cup and wine, and divide their emblematical unity or 
substance, as they divide our sacramental unity. For 
if the cup and new testament are separated, and a par- 
ticular one of them is to be regarded in its own peculiar 
nature, we may also be assured, that the cup may be 
regarded no better than a cup or piece of silver, fully as 
much as they are assured, that if the cup and wine are 
separated from each other, ihe cup is then no longer a 
sign of the new testament, but a mere simple cup. ‘This 
sophistry the logicians call, fo argue from a part to the 
whole in a negative proposition ; that is, from the less 
to the greater, from a particular to a universal nega- 
five,—a species of fallacy quite common with the En- 
thusiasts. As if I were to say, “ Peter has no ear; 
therefore Peter has no body.”’? “Gold is not black; 
therefore gold is without color.’ But the Enthusiasts 
do not understand the logic even of children. 

441. In the second place, we would gladly know, 


Sey 9 
BT THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


how or with what part the cup in connection with 
the wine should be a sign of the blood of Christ, or 
the rew testament, or wherein this similitnde consists, as 
has been already discussed. For the new testament 15 
the Gospel, the Spirit, the remission of sins, in and 
through the blood of Christ, &c.; for they are all 
one thing, in one mass; they constitute one essence, 
wil in the blood, all in the cup. Wherever one is, 
there the other is also. Whoever names or points 
out one, touches the whole. Now, how can mere wine 
represent or indicate so important a thing, if all the 
firures in the old testament can scarcely represent 1? 
In no other way than in that which 1 have described, 
the wine with them shall and must be a sign, although 
it cannot be a sign, they pay little regard to this. Are 
not these then very poor people, who not only lose the 
essence, as the body and blood of Christ in the Eucha- 
rist, but even the sign or figure besides, and they have 
mo more than peasants at a common tippling: house. only 
that they flatter themselves with words, pretending to 
have figures, when they cannot tellin what the figures 
consist? But in this they are treated right, because 
they wil not have the real Aerne/, and they should not 
retain the shell and the husk: and while they wish to be 
contesting and mutilating our system, they lose their 
own, and retain nothing. 

442, We have proved above, in discussing the pas- 
sage in Luke, that these words cannot be figurative, 
‘This cup is the new testament in my blood,”’ because 
the expression, 7x my blood, is of the same signification 
as, through or with my blood. For the blood-of Christ 
must not be regarded as so impotent a thing as only to 
afford a similitude of the new testament, as the blood of 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 377 


calves in Moses of former times. So too the word blood 
cannot bea figure. For the cup cannot become so im- 
portant a thing, by the sign of blood, or mere wine, 
namely, as to be the new testament. 

443. If we compare the Evangelists and Paul, the 
result will be, that we shall find them standing as one 
man, and that they admit no visionary systems of rovro, 
of tropes, and of emblems. The tropists dream awhile 
on Matthew and Mark, that blood means the sign of 
blood; bat Luke and Paul approach, and oveithrow 
their tropes irrecoverably. For these inspired writers 
show in their text, that blood can never mean the sign 
of blood, or be a trope, because the Enthusiasts them- 
selves have never made a trope, nor can they make one, 
out of this text: ‘This cup is the new testament in my 
blood ;”’ consequently in Matthew and Mark also blood 
must not be regarded as a trope, because they all four 
speak of the same blood. 

444. If, however, they turn to Luke and Paul, and 
strive to make a trope out of the expression, new festa- 
ment, saying that it is a sign of the new testament, then 

fatthew and Mark appear hand and hand with Luke 
and Paul, prostrate them again, and show that new tes- 
tament cannot be a trepe. And the Enthusiasts them- 
selves neither do nor can makeatrone out of the expression 
new testament; and they areas little able to do so in Mat- 
thew and Mark, as they are in Luke and Paul. For it 
cannot be admissible, that I should say in Matthew and 
Mark, “This is my blood of the figurative new testa- 
ment.” For the blood of Christ is not that of the figu- 
rative testament, nor the blood of the old testament, but 
of the new, which consists of bis blood, and which must 
indeed be understood as the same new testament in Luke 


378 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


‘and Paul, which it is understood to be in Matthew and 
-Mark, because undoubtedly all four ef them speak of the 
csame testament. Thus Matthew and Mark maintain 
the expression, new testament, in security, purity, and 
simplicity, without any trope. Luke and Paul maintain 
the word bJood in security, purity, and simplicity, alto- 
gether void of a figure. And here the Enthusiasts must 
be guilty of falsehood, as I know assuredly ; and if they 
«ould give you here an honest answer, you should wil- 
Jingly admit that they have triumphed. 

445. ence we must let this text maintain its posi-+ 
tion, as the words read, which I hope is supported with 
sufficient power, and our consciences secured in the be- 
hef, that our. interpretation.is correct, and that of the 
Inthusiasts not only undetermined, but absolutely false. 

446, Where new are these little Enthusiasts, who 
boast so exquisitely, that Chmst never performed any 
iniracle, unless it were visibly and tangibly present ? 
Was it not a miracle, when John saw the Holy Ghost 
coming from heaven, John 1, 32? Yet the Holy 
Ghost did not stand visibly er but in the form of a 
diove. Was : not a miracle, when Zacharias saw the 
angel Gabriel at the dies of tacense, Luke 1, 10? 
Yet the aimee did not stand visibly there, but in the 
form of a burning flame. Was it not a miracle, that 
the Son of God lived personally upon the earth? Still 
the Son of God was not visibly here.”?, Now what can 
a man deduce from such loose, frivolous arguments, by 
which they falsify and abuse the plain word and work 
of God, except to be convinced, that men are obstinately 
«etermined to be lost ? 

447, Certainly it is a wonderful miracle, that the 
body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist ; 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 379 


yet they are not visible there. It is, however, sufficient 
for us to perceive by his word and by the eye of faith, 
that he is there; for their representation is also not visi- 
bly present. For although they may be able to see a 
cup of wine visibly there; yet they can see nothing to 
convince them that it is an emblem of the body and 
blood, but they are obliged to say so in words, and to 
believe it in the heart; for it does not stand painted or 
inscribed upon the cup, that it is a sign of the blood of 
Christ. This is all absurdity, but it is fearful that men 
will build their hopes, and presume to confide upon it, 
in opposition to the word of God. 

448, Where are even all the others, who exclaim 
presumptuously, ‘There is no remission of sins in the 
Eucharist?’ St. Paul and Luke say that the new tes- 
tament is in the Eucharist, and not the sign or figure 
of the new testament. lor the sign or figure of the 
new testament belonged to the old testament, or to the 
Jews; and whoever confesses that he has a sign or figure 
of the new testament, acknowledges by that very con- 
fession, that he does not possess the new testament it- 
self; he has recanted his faith, has falsified his Savior, 
and become a Jew. Fora Christian ought to have the 
new testament itself, without a sign or figure. He 
might conceal it under some extraneous form, but in 
strict reality he must have it present with him. Now, 
if the new testament be in the Eucharist, the remission 
of sins, the Holy Ghost, grace, life, and salvation, must 
be there. And all these are embraced in the word. 
For who would know what is in the Eucharist, if the 
word did not declare it ? 

449. Behold, therefore, what a beautiful, sublime, 
wonderful system it is, what a harmonious connection in 


980 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


all its parts, what a sacramental reality! The words 
are of the first importance; for without the words, the 
cup and bread would be nothing. And more than this, 
without the bread and the cup, the body and blood of 
Christ would not be there. Without the body and 
blood of Christ, no new testament would be there; 
without the new testament, no remission of sins; with- 
out the remission of sins, no life and salvation. So the 
words first of all embrace the bread and the cup at the 
sacrament; the bread and cup embrace the body and 

lood of Christ; the body and blood of Christ embrace 
the new testament; the new testament embraces the re- 
mission of sins; the remission of sins embraces eternal 
life and salvation. Behold, all this the words of the 
Eucharist give us, with all this they enrich us; and we 
embrace all by faith. Ought not Satan, then, to be an 
enemy to such a sacrament, and should not enthusiasts 
arise against it? 

450. Now since all this constitutes a sacramental 
reality, we can with truth and propriety say in refer- 
ence to each part, as of the cup, ‘“ This is the blood of 
Christ; this is the new testament; this 1s the remission 
of sins; this is life and salvation.”? Just as I can also 
point to the man Christ, and say, “ This is God; this 
is truth; this is life, salvation, wisdom.’’ Let this suf- 
fice on the present subject; we would now hear St. 
Paul still farther. 

451. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.”? Ob- 
serve here again: the cup cannot here be understood as 
mere silver or wood,—for who can drink silver or 
wood? but because the cup ἐδ become one single object 
with the liquid, the liquid in the cup ts here called the 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 381 


cup ; thus you perceive how common this mode of ex- 
pression ts in all languages. Immediately after this he 
says, ‘ Let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup.” 
Now, who can drink of a cup, that is, of silver or wood? 
But as remarked above, it is a mode of expression in all 
languages, where two things become one object, for this 
one object to retain the name of both; as the Holy 
Ghost is the dove, and the dove is the Holy Ghost. 
452. Here the Enthusiasts exult, and cry out vic- 
tory. “Here, here, you hear that St. Paul names 
bread and cup, and he does not only say, as often as ye 
eat of the body of Christ, and drink of the blocd of 
Christ.” Beloved, let us also cry out triumphantly : 
“St. Paul does not say, as often as ye drink of the 
wine, but he says, as often as ye drink of the cup.” 
Why do these Enthusiasts drink the wine; why do they 
not drink the cup? Must it not follow of necessity, 
that they should drink the cup, if St. Paul speak of 
drinking the cup; but they understand the wine in the 
cup, because the cup and wine have become one object ? 
Beloved, why then must it follow that we must eat mere 
bread, and may not as reasonably understand the body 
in the bread, in consequence of the sacramental union ? 
Ah! the poor flesh-eaters must not presume on such im- 
plication; none but the lordly Enthusiasts can do so. 
453. But again 1 exclaim, “St. Paul does not say, 
Als often as ye eat of the sign of the body, and drink 
of the sign of the blood ; therefore the bread cannot be 
a stgn of the body, nor the wine a sign of the blood.” 
Is this not admirable? But if this text is not opposed 
to the emblem of the Enthusiasts, beloved, why then 
should it be opposed to us, for maintaining that the body 
and blood are present? For St. Paul speaks as little of 


959 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


sign here, as he does of body and blood, and conse- 
quently he must be as strongly opposed to their opinion 
as to ours; and if he touches them not, neither does he 
touch us; if in other respects this would be enough: 
‘Paul does not say so here, therefore it 15 not so-;”’ 
this would be an argument from pure negatives. Even 
children know perfectly well what kind of a principle 
this would be, especially when designed to support an 
article of faith. 

454. But this is true according to the rule of that 
Silesian spirit; if they are right, I must yield them the 
victory. For the rule holds infallibly : “‘ We must re- 
move the text from our eyes, and not look upon it at 
all, where the body and blood of Christ is spoken of as 
being present in the Eucharist. For this text obstructs 
the intellect, and the spiritual perception.” The other 
rule also: “We must direct our eyes somewhere else, 
where this text does not stand, and then exclaim, ‘ See 
here! see here! It is not said here that the body and 
blood are present in the Eucharist.’ *? In this passage, 
too, they follow these rules implicitly. For what St. 
Paul has said,—“ This is my body,’’—immediately be- 
fore; again, “ This is the new testament in my blood ;”’ 
this in their view is nothing. They act here just as if 
this text were at no place in the world, and they will 
not look at it. On the other hand, where the text does 
not stand, they are sure to pause, and search about for 
the text, opening their mouths, and panting with curl- 
osity, just as if St. Paul must in every sentence and in 
every line insert no other words but these, “ This is my 
body,’ in order that they might be able to see them. 
But because all their exertion is taxed merely to search 
this text— This is my body”’—at some place where it 


Ἐν ἼΩ 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 383 


- does not stand, why do they not also seek it in Marcol- 
phus, or in Dietrich von Bern, where they know they 
will never find it? They must be either knaves or ma- 
niacs, who search and make diligent inquiry for a thing 
at places where it is not, and will not see it when it is 
placed before their eyes. 

455. Yet in addition to the fact, that St. Paul had 
inserted this text immediately before, he also in this 
place does not forget the same; for he does not speak 
concerning mere bread and cup, but says, This bread,— 
this cup; by the word this, he forcibly refers to the 
bread and cup, which he had mentioned before. Now 
if the Enthusiasts would attend to these two references, 
and see which bread and which cup it was, to which he 
refers, they would then readily discover that [015 bread 
is the body of Christ, and this cup the new testament ; 
for he is certainly speaking of the same bread and cup, 
when he says, this, as even children and the uliterate 
can readily perceive. 

456. But the Enthusiasts leap over these words, 
This bread,—this cup; indeed, according to their rule, 
they remove them from their eyes, only insisting upon 
the words, bread and cup ; they will not, however, suf 
fer us to disregard the word cup, as they do our word 
this. Now if they cry out, “St. Paul does not say 
here, 4s often as ye eat the body of Christ ;” you 
should reply, ‘‘ He does, however, say so even here.”’ 
«¢ Where, and in what text?’ Say then, “ By the word 
this. Look at the word, and there you will find this 
text,— This is my body; this ἐς the new testament tii 
my blood. Sor the word this, lays it again before you; 
but cannot present it before your eyes, for you always 
turn them away to some other place.” 


% 


984 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


457. But observe here what anxiety and presump- 
tion this genius betrays. As already said, where the 
plain words stand,—This ts my body: this is my 
blood,—they can equivocate, and say, This ἐς the stgn 
of my body: the sign of my blood. Now if Paul had 
really inserted this text here,—As often as ye eat of 
the body of the Lord, and drink his blocd,—O how 
easy would it be for them to act here in the same way, 
and say, “It must mean thus: As often as ye eat of 
the sign of my body and blocd.”? ‘The genius supposes 
that we do not understand his evasion. Beloved, if any 
one can equivocate about this text,-— This ts my body, — 
which cannot be expressed in more perspicuous terms, 


he would certainly equivocate much more on this text, - 


As often as ye eat the body of the Lord, which is not 
80 δον ΠῚ as the former, with the exception that our ge- 
nius must so paint and disguise himself, pretending that 
he would believe, if Paul would say, As often as ye eat 
the body of the Lord, preventing us in this way from 
observing, how his ingenuity perverts the text, where 
it stands distinctly written, we should eat the body of 
the Lord, namely, ‘‘'Take, eat: thisismy body.”? Be 
loved, let them give us a plainer text, which they can+ 
not pervert, then I will gladly hear them. For if the 
word body be uttered in any text, their ingenuity will 
soon repeat the sgn of bedy ; though it is a shame that 
any one should be so childish on these subjects, but the 
Enthusiasts cannot be ashamed. Well, it contributes 
no little to our cause, for it renders our interpretation 
so much the more secure, in opposition to which they 
play their antics in so childish and ridiculous a manner. 
The text continues: 

“‘ Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup 


¢ 


‘ 


THE LORD’S SUPPER: 385 
of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and 
blood of the Lord.” 

458, Here again stand bread and cup before the 
Enthusiasts, where they would construe mere bread and 
cup, that is, wine, out of them, and then put questions 
and inquiries: ‘‘ Why St. Paul did not say, ‘ Whoever 
eats the body of Christ nworthily.’? For St. Paul here 
says, This bread, and he himself refers to the bread, of 
which he had spoken just before, a circumstance which 
must not be oe but removed if possible out of 
sight, in order that it may not obstruct the spiritual per- 
ception; and no other thought must be indulged, but 
that St. Paul did not say thes bread, but merely bread, 
as if his text stood here thus: Whoever eats bread un- 
worthily. In this w ay the certain truth would be dis- 
cernible.” But we give praise to God, because we seé 
how St. Paul always repeais and reinserts this text, 
“This is my body,’ with the word thts, as ὀναννη 
above; and this he still more clearly establishes where he 
says, ᾿ἰξδαδριεν eats this bread unworthily, is guil= 
ty,-—not merely of bread, or of the sign of the body of 
—— but,—of the body of the Lord Ἢ 

459, Beloved, let us quibble a little here, after their 
Εἰ δ νι Why does not St. Paul say, He who eats this 
bread unworthily, 7s guilty of the bread, or, of the 
sign of the body of Christ? Since the text, with 
great force, demands, that the sin consist in eating un- 
worthily ; and yet they pretend that it is mere bread 
which they eat, so must the recipient, according to the 
words and expression, be guilty of what he eats. For 
Paul does not say, Whoever unworthily reflects upon 
the suffering of Christ, is guiity of the body of the 
Lord. If they can sae with the question, why 

eid: 


- 


386 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Paul did not say, Wherer eats the body of Christ un- 
worthily, &c., and think they have shown that the 
body of Christ is not there, unless we show why Paul 
does not make this assertion, we would again refer them 
to our question, why St. Paul does not say, Wheerer re- 
flects upon the sufferings of Christ unworthily, or, 
unworthily eats the sign of his body? And unless they 
show why he does not make this assertion, they must 
justly yield their perversion, according to the rule and 
Jaw which they wish to apply to us. 

460. But I know full well, that they do not believe 
this equivocation ; but because they beheve that nothing 
but bread is present, they think that some comment or 
explanation must be made ; for if they did not insist wpon 
it, they would themselves reject this comment. And ἴῃς 
deed they themselves perfectly understand the comment 
of Carlstadt, and must acknowledge that it is a mere 
fiction. For St. Paul reproaches the Corinthians, not 
on account of their unworthy reflections on the suffer- 
ing of Christ, which a child may easily read and prove; 
for he relates in express terms that the sin of the Core 
inthians consisted in their not waiting for each other, 
but whoever came first, ate immediately, so that those 
who came afterwards found nothing, and stood abashed, 
thus making the Eucharist merely contribute to their 
voracity, as though it were but an ordinary meal. Thus 
hesays: “When ye come together therefore in one place, 
this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating every 
one taketh before other his own supper.”? Do you not 
perceive, that they did not celebrate the Supper of the 
Lord, but an indulgence of the appetite. For while 
others were still delaying to come, they proceeded, suf- 
fering the Lord’s Supper to be neglected, and in the mean 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 387 


time kept eating, as Paul afterwards says, When ye 
come together to eat, let one wait for the other, so that. 
ye do not come together fer condemnaticn. Thus you 
perceive that the sin consisted in eating. 

461. Wherefore, Gicolampadius makes a better com- 
ment, as it seems to him, and he says, ‘“¢ The Corinthians 
by their unworthy participation had committed sin against 
the Encharist, that is, against the bread and wine, which 
are sions of the body and blood of Christ, as one who dis- 
honors a picture of the emperor, dishonors the emperor 
himself. Thus whoever partaketh this bread and wine 
unworthily, dishonors the body and biood of Christ, em- 
blems or signs of which they are.”? Thus they differ 
among themselves in their comment, just as they do in 
their text, yet both say that the Holy Ghost teaches this. 
But the comment of Cicolampadius is peculiarly insig- 
nificant. In the first place, because we have proved 
above, and aleged that bread and wine are nct, nor 
can they be, signs or emblems of the body and blood of 
Christ. For no property can be pointed out, in which 
this similitude consists; consequently, this example of. 
the emperor’s picture will not correspond with the casc_ 
under consilJeration, unless it be first made evident 
how the bread and wine are emblems or signs of the 
body and blood of Christ, as his picture must be similar 
to the emperor. 

462. In the second place, did this similitude really 
exist, it would indeed be a fine subject for comment, but : 
by no means certain. For who cannot make a com- 
ment, and go forth and say of it, “ This has been my 
opinion??? No, because they explain the text differ- 
ently from the natural import of the words, and assail 
our interpretation, they must not introduce here com- 


on THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ments so naked, so defenceless, so low and meagre, and 
inake themselves so gay and merry about it; but they 
must prove by powerful arguments, that these comments 
are right, and that they must and should be so under- 
stood. Now Cé£eolarmpadius does not for one moment 
consider, that he ought to do this, but he imagines his 
undefended comments quite sufficient. But where would 
my conscience be, which desires to stand on good ground 
and secure? Shall it depend upon these meagre, ema- 
ciated, and naked comments? What concern, however, 
is it to this genius, how conscience may stand? 

463. In the third place, these comments, besides 
being uncertain, can have no semblance of truth, unless 
it would be made eertain, and proved that there are 
mere bread and wine in the Eucharist. Fer if the real 
body and blood of Christ are in the Eucharist, this poor 
unfortunate comment lies in ashes. Now they have not 
hitherto proved, nor can they prove, that mere bread 
and wine are present there, as little as they have proved, 
or are able to prove, that the sien of body or the sign 
of blood is present there, even if they were able to prove 
that mere bread and wine are present there; for they 
have not proved either of these, nor ean they prove ei- 
ther, but we have proved aecording as the words read, 
that the body and blood of Christ are present. Hence, 
if they had the text in the Eucharist established accord- 
ing to their sense, we might for the sake of peace admit 
to some extent such commentson this passage; for they are 
not fit or applicable in their very nature, as we shall hear. 

464. It is a fourth consideration, the very best of 
ull, that Gecolampadius does not regard this passage,— 
body and blood,—as a trope, but as the words read, 
‘he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ;” what 


THE LOBD’S SUPPER. 389 


is derived from this? This will result: If body and 
blood in this passage, are to be understood as the words 
read, and if they are not figurative, they cannot be fig- 
urative in the text also of the institution itself; for it 
can in no way be admitted, that St. Paul, on the same 
subject matter and in the same way, should use the same 
words diiferently and for a different purpose, as a double- 
tongued and artful deceiver, but he must simply leave 
bedy and blocd the very same in voth places. If body 
in the Eucharist signifies the sion of body, and blood 
the sign of blood, sv they must here also signify the sign 
of body and the sign of blood. If they mean here real 
body and blood, they must mean real body and blood in 
the Eucharist also; for he speaks in both places con- 
cerning the same Eucharist, he must therefore speak in 
both places concerning the same body and blood, for 
there he teaches and institutes it; here he advises the 
proper use of it. : 
405. Now, where is this dry, emaciated comment ἢ 
“ Whosoever eateth unworthily, is guilty of the body 
and blood ef the Lord ;”’ that is, “‘ whosoever dishonors 
the picture ef the king, dishonors the king himself.” 
If body is the sign of body, this comment must lead to 
this result: Whoever eateth bread unworthily, is guilty 
of the sign of the body, that 15, of bread ; for body must 
here also mean the sign of body, or bread; if not, both are: 
fallen, the text and the comment, with the Enthusiasts 
and all, in one mass into the mire. Behold here how 
much toil, danger, and ill success those encounter, who 
take a he for the truth, and put themselves in array 
against the truth! 
466. Would the Enthusiasts sustain their position, 
they have three great labors to accomplish. In the first 


390 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


place, they have to prove, how body and blood are the 
sign of body and blood, or merely bread and wine in the 
Eucharist. In the second place, they must prove how 
this simple bread and wine can be the sign of body, and 
the sign of blood. When they have accomplished this, 
on Satan’s ascent into heaven, they must advance again 
toa mighty and still more difficult task ; they must prove 
in their comment on this passage, that body and blood 
are not the signs of body and blood, because they must 
show, that in the same expression and in reference to 
the same subject, blood is not blood, body is not body, 
but on the contrary, however, the same blood is blood, 
and the same body is body, and means body. This 
will require a deal of ingenuity,—this will be to make 
contradictions seem true. 

467. In the fifth place, if every thing here were 
otherwise correct, and stood in need of no further assist- 
ance, yet this comment would be of no importance in it- 
self. For Paul does not say, ‘‘ Whosoever eateth this 
bread unworthily, is guilty of Christ,”? according to the 
illustration of Gicolampadius, like the man being guilty 
in relation to the king, who derides his picture; but St. 
Paul intimates, that the guilt occurs in reference to the 
members of Christ, of which the bread and wine should 
be the signs, namely, of the body and blood—says he— 
“he is guilty”? &c. According to this, dicolampadius 
must construct his comment and illustration in the fol- 
lowing manner or after a similar method: ‘* Whoever 
dishonors the nose on the picture of the emperor, dis- 
honors the nose of the emperor; whoever abuses the 
mouth of the picture, abuses the mouth which the em- 
peror has. So that the dishonor which is done to the 
picture, takes effect not on the person, but upon the 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 991 


member which was dishonored in the picture. For St. 
Paul does not here refer to the person of Christ, but to 
the body and blood of Christ, as to the members of his 
person.” 
468. I have written this, in order that you may see 
that GEcolamvadius does not construct his comments and 
examples properly, and that they do not accord with the 
text of St. Paul. For if they are to accord, St. Paul 
must say, as already observed, ‘‘ Whosoever eateth this 
bread unworthily, is guilty in reference to Christ, 
hike the man who is guilty in reference to the king, for 
dishonoring the picture of the king ; that is, he ina not 
sinned against a particular limb, or member of the per- 
son, but against the majesty and government of the 
king. For this is what is meant by such expressions.” 
But here St. Paul says that the sin is committed against 
the members of the person, as against the body and 
blood of Christ, which is a nearer and more intimate 
offence, than that against the majesty and government 
of Christ. For this reason, too, the comment is of no 
value in itself, as it relates altogether to majesty and 
government, while the text relates to the members or 
parts of the person. 
469. Paul thus proceeds, 1 Cor. 11, 28: “ But 
let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of that cup.” Here stand again the 
bread and cup. So Paul contrasts one with the other; 
now he calls them bread and cup; afterwards again, body 
and blood, and then bread and cup again, and then for 
the third time, body and blood. In order that he may 
render us well assured, that this sacrament is not mere 
bread and wine, but the body and blood also of Christ. 
But the Enthusiasts must turn away their eyes, when- 


992. THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


ever St. Paul mentions body and blood, and attend only 
when he mentions bread and cup; or else they must 
comment, and work body and blood into a figure, but 
they find nothing for comment or the assumption of a 
figure in bread and cup, and thus they sport and run 
with the text, just as they please. 

470. And this passage especially seems too strong 
in their favor; for St. Paul, in the original, does not 
say, “let him eat of this bread,” but merely of (he bread; 
and, ‘let him drink of the cup,” not ef this cup. 
Well, we grant them the choice, whether they will suf 
fer St. Paul to speak here of a different bread and cup, 
or of the same. If he speak concerning a di/ferené 
bread and cup, he does not thereby oppose our view ; 
and they may be allowed to understand nothing but 
bread and wine, as it will be no benefit to them, for we 
speak of bread in the Eucharist. But if he speak con- 
cerning the same bread and cup, cf which there is no 
doubt, we have heard quite sufhiciently what this cup 
and bread are in the preceding text. Let what is there 
said, be understood here also. 

471. Finally, “ For he that eateth and drinketh un- 
worthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not 
discerning the Lord’s body.’? As to the views of Car!- 
stadt on the word descerning, Lhave writtenenoughinmy 
little book against the Heavenly Prophets. For it cannot 
be spoken in reference to the memory of his sufferings, as 
the fancy of Carlstadt pretends; because here the text 
rigorously demands, that eating unworthily and not 
discerning the body of Christ are one thing, which 
we understand according to the words as they read, 
that the Corinthians had eaten this bread, with the 
understanding or absurdity that it was merely bread, and 


iz) 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 395 


that there was no difference between this bread and other 
bread,—* which is indeed to eat unworthily the body of 
Christ??? Hence he admonishes them to examine them- 
selves, and consider what they are, and what they hold 
this bread to be. For if they regard it not as the body 
of Christ, or if they act as if it were not the body of 
Christ, they do net discern the body of Christ 3 and the 
offence will not remain unpunished. We know quite 
well how St. Paul uses the word dcaxprvecv, instead of dis- 
eernere,asin 1 Cor.4,7, “ Whomaketh thee to differ from 
another ?”? that is, who has made you distinct from oth- 
ers, as if you were better than, and different from, the 
generality of men? And Rom. 14, 23, “He that doubt- 
eth, is damned if he eat;’’ that is, whoever ean distin- 
guish this to be sin, and still acts in opposition to his 
conviction, iscondemned. And thus, what we call a dis- 
cerning, to discern, to prefer one thing to another, 
St. Paul calls διακριγειν, 
472, But Gicolampadius makes a better appearance, 
ecause he derives this distinction from the honor, which 
through respect to the picture results to the king, as we 
have seen above in reference to another expression. 
But the same thing is lacking here as there. I say here ; 
and all that I have said against him in discussing that 
expression, is equally opposed to him here. For, be- 
cause we take the text in its simplicity as it reads, and 
they wish to take it from us, and explain it differently, 
it is not enough for them to utter mere naked comments, 
and then leave it so; but they ought to prove by Scrip- 
ture and reason, that this comment is correct, and 
properly applicable to this subject. &colampadius does 
not do this, and he is not able to do it. For who will 
believe that not discerning the Lord’s body, is nothing 


394 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


more than dishonoring Christ in his emblem? For it 
has never yet been proved, that in the holy Supper there. 
are mere bread and the sign of body, upon which, how- 
ever, this feeble comment supports itself. 

473. Besides this, he must also show that the body 

of the Lord, must be taken here, not as the real body 
of Christ, but merely as the sien of his bodys because 
St. Paul cannot here speak of any other body, than that of 
which he says, “This is my hody,’? 1 Cor. 11, 24, 
For he is still speaking concerning the Supper, in the 
saine connection, so he must also be speaking in the same 
words. Now, if body is not the sign of body here, why 
is it the sign of body there? If it is here body, why is 
it not there body? Consequently this comment and the 
text with all that they say must submit, or the text 
must be rendered thus: who dees not discern the sign 
of the Lord’s body. Such is the position of the present 
passage, and Paul is still evidently inclined to our side. 
For we find his words corresponding with our interpre« 
tation with great simplicity, harmony, and void of any 
incongruity ; and we need no comments or suppositions, 
to explain them differently from what they read. 
ἡ 474. Well, now let us examine the text of St. Paul 
in the tenth chapter, where he says, ‘‘ The cup of bless- 
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the 
communion of the body of Christ?” 1 Car. 10, 16. 

475. This text have I applauded, and still applaud, 
as the joy and crown of my heart. For he does not 
only say, ‘ This is the body of Christ,’ as expressed 
in the institution of the Eucharist, but mentions the 
bread which is broken, and says, “" This bread is the 
body of Christ ;”’—yes, this bread, which we break, ws 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 395 


not only the body of Christ, but the distributed bedy 
of Christ. Here is then a text so plain and perspicu= 
ous, that the Enthusiasts and all the world cannot desire 
or demand any thing more ; yet it seems to have no effect 
onthem. On this text they make me no further answer, 
than to show that they are at variance among themselves. 
Some say, that Paul speaks concerning an emblematical 
and figurative communion, but some say, he speaks con= 
cerning a spiritual communion, introducing bere what 
follows immediately after conéerning the communion of 
the altar and of devils, escaping with this, without re- 
garding us, or trying to show that they would prove οὗ 
force it from the text; and here I must be satisfied in 
their unsupported words and comments, and they act as 
if I congratulated one, and he would turn away, with a 
contemptuous movement, and so would pass off. 
Well, they shall not pass so insolently, and act with so 
much indecency, if it be the will of God. 

476. First, there is no doubt, that St. Paul speaks 
here also concerning the Eucharist, because he speaks 
concerning bread, cup, the body and blood of Christ, 
and he must certainly be speaking concerning the same 
body and blood, bread and cup, which are spoken of in 
the institution of the Eucharist. If not, this text has 
no relation to our subject; and whoever pleases, might 
believe of it, that he is speaking merely of ordinary ree 
pasts. Hence it follows from this, that the text before 
us, according to the views of Gicolampadius, must stand 
thus: ‘* This bread, which we break, is a communion of 
the bread, which is.a sign of the body of Christ; the 
cup of blessing, which we bless, is a communion of the 
wine, which is an emblem of the blood of Christ.’? Is 
not this an admirable text? Bread is a communion of 


396 THE LORD’S SUPPER; 


bread; cup is a communion of wine! What does this 
amount to, but to say, that the broken bread is a com- 
munion of bread; that is, the broken bread is an ordinary, 
distributed bread? Can Paul teach us nothing else 
but that distributed bread is distributed bread? Or 
does he feel great solicitude, lest we might mistake 
distributed bread for distributed sausagés, or distributed 
wine for distributed water? These are their own words, 
that body should mean the sign of body, that is, bread ; 
blood the sign of blood, that is, were, as we have heard 
abundantly ; and they have all their books full of it. 

477. But if the figure should depend on the word 
communion, and it ought to mean a sign of commu- 
nton, or, ὦ. figurative communion, through which thé 
spiritual communion is indicated; then the text of Gico- 
lampadius, according to this contorted and awkward 
figure, must stand thus: “ The bread, which we break, 
is a figurative communion of the figurative body of 
Christ, which is the bread.”?’ Beloved, what in the 
world is this,—‘ Bread is the figurative communion of 
bread?’ For in this way they must speak, if the figure 
ig to stand. Now, should one loaf of bread be a sign or 
figure of another, as 1t is distributed and made common 
orgeneral? Since both loaves naturally and materially 
must be bread ; the first, because it is broken; the other; 
because it is a sign of the body of Christ. 

478. Since this genius can do every thing, I believe 
he regards the first bread, which is broken, as a picture 
of bread upon paper, or a carved loaf of bread, which 
might well enough be a figure or sign of other real bread; 
which represents the body of Christ, in order that the 
text may stand thus: ‘ This wooden broken bread is a 
figurative communion of the real bread, which is a sign 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 397 


or an emb!em of the body of Christ.” For all this would 
be required by the nature of his figure. If not, it must 
stand thus: “ This broken bread, which cannot be a 
fivurative comraunion of bread, is, however, a figurative 
communion of bread.” For it is impossible for one 
loaf of bread to be a figurative communion of an- 
other loaf. 

479. We have already proved, that this figure of 
antecedent reference cannot exist in the Scriptures ner 
in any language, bat it is a mere fiction of the Imagina- 
tion, Fer, aecording to the Scripture, and the whole 
science Gf language, if the word communion become 
a ficure, it must point forward to a spiritual com- 
minion, or toa new, a different commnion besides the 
old physical communion. Precisely as body and b'cod 
must mean a spiritual, or different bedy and blood, if 
they become figurative, or they should not signify phy-= 
sical body and blood. Hence Ὁ amunion, in this pas- 
Sage, must merely signify a nature! communion or cise 
tribution; or if it be a figure, it must signify a new 
spiritual communion, according to which the text would 
have to stand thus: ‘* This bread, which we break, is a} 
spiritual communion of the body of Christ.”? But if 
body here also be a real figure, it would have te 
mean the spiritual body of Christ, which is the church. 
And then the text upon the whole would stand thus: 
“<This bread, which we break, is a spiritual distribution 
oi Christianity,’’—with the signification, Wherever this 
bread is broken, there will Christianity be diffused 
also; and then horrors far more horrible would follow. 

482. Let them choose here which alternative they 
please. If body and blood in this passage are figurative, 


and the emblems of body and blood, namely, bread and 
94 


398 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


wine, as their doctrine maintains, they would find it im- 
possible to avert all the dreadful conseyuences, to which 
I have just now alluded, which every man must com- 
prehend, and no one can deny ; especially if they are de- 
termined to have communicn also figurative. But if 
they are not figurative, but the real body and blood of 
Christ, as our doctrine maintains, they cannot be figu- 
rative in the other passage at the institution cf the Eu-. 
charist. For no man can deny, that St. Paul speaks 
here concerning the Eucharist, aa that he names and 
means the very same blood and body, which Matthew, 
chap. 26, 26; Mark, chap. 14, 22-24; Luke, chap. 22, 
19, 20, and Paul himself in other chapters, name and 
mean, when they say, “ This is my body; this is my 
blood.”?, What can they fabricate against this? 

485. Now they will have to make the choice, that 

e blood and body are figurative. For their doctrine de- 
m att it, because these words here refer to the sacra- 
ment, and in the Eucharist sacrarnental or figurative 
5. must be employed, as Gicolampadius ΠΥ ΤῚ 
HTence, this consequence must ensue, that the bread is a 
veirine communion of the bread; that is, it 1s a pic- 
tured bread. or else it is what it ὌΡΗ be, as above re- 
marked. For Cicolampadius admits, that the werd is 
does not mean signzjies ; therefore he must admit, that 
bread isa figurative ane en of the bread, and he 
cannot say, that the broken bread is a spiriiual com- 
munion. For with him a natural object cannot be, and 
cannot be called, a spiritual object. 

484. But if he desire to have a figure out of the 
word communion only, and his text to stand thus: 
«ς This bread, which we break, is a figure of the com- 
munion of the body of Christ,” and if he can prove 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 399 


this, his view will be admirably sustained; but then 
the word body would not be a figure. But if body here 
is not a figure, it cannot be a figure in Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke, where they say, ‘¢ This is my body ;”’ because 
it is the same Eucharist and the same body, of which 
they are speaking. Thus wherever this genzus attempts 
to go, he is sure to stumble, to totter, and is obliged to 
fall. I would advise them to say, ‘ The external word 
of God is of no consequence, and we have enough in the 
internal evidence of the Spirit; we scorn the words 
of St. Paul,—those poor, insignificant dozen of letters ;”’ 
and then the expressicn, ‘‘ body and blood,’? woul! 
have to be either a figure or not a figure, just as they 
please; otherwise I cannot imagine how they would evade 
the text of St. Paul. They would then have also to 
contrive some method, to force the world into the belief 
of their testimony and their interpretation, and thus they 
would have secured the victory. 

_ 483. Now whatever has been sail against the text 
of Gicolampadius, operates equally against the text of 
Zwinglius. For wherever Gicolampadius makes an em- 
blem, there Zwinglius makes a figure; and the explana- 
tions of both are of the same import, though expressed 
in different terms. Qcolampadius has a figure of the 
body; Zwinglius an emblematical body; and these are 
but one and the same thing. Llence the text of Zwin- 
glius must stand thus: ‘* The bread, which we break, is 
the communion of the emblematic body of Christ,” that 
is, of the bread, just like the version of GEcolampadius. 
Butif only he could construe his text thus: ‘The bread, 
which we break, represents the communion of the body 
of Christ,” it would then admirably support his view 
of the subject. But the text in Matthew, Mark, and 


400 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Luke, will not suffer this: when he says, “ this repre- 
sents my body,” if he has the same represented body, 
he must admit it to be the same represented body vere 
also; for itis the same bo.ly, as already remarked. Now 
the same consequences tnust follow from assuming a fig- 
urative or represented boty, as Cacolampadius would 
derive from assuming an emb'ematical body, as every 
one can imagine and ye ceive for himself; therefore it is 
not necessary to mention all again. 

454. The Silesian enthusiast, with his perversion, 
must here also come under consideration : for thus he in= 
verts the text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, ** My body 
is this, namely, a spiritual meat.”? For, he says, the 
word this must refer to the Spint, it must, then, be so 
construed here also; and this text, “ ‘The cup of biess- 
ing, which we bless,” must also be inverted: “ The 
communion of the blood of Christ, is the cup of blessing, 
which we bless,” namely, a spiritual cup of blessing. 
Now if this communion is a spiritual thing, and if it 
must here also mean a natural cup of wine, the natural 
cup must at the same time be a spiritual cup; that 15, at 
the same time a spiritual cup, and not a spiritual cup, 
natural and not natural. For Paul speaks concerning 
the natural cup, but this genitws makes the very same 
cup spiritual and not natural. Is not this noble, eleva- 
ted spiritualizing? Let them go on with their ridicus | 
lous sophistries. 

485. Our text and interpretation stand here clear 
and elegant, bright and perspicuous. ‘ The bread, 
which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ.” 

486. Were you must observe, in the first plece, that 
he is speaking of the natural bread, which we break in 
the celebration of the Eucharist: this no one can deny. 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 401 


After this, it is also certain, that at this natural break- 
ing of bread, or Eucharist, there must not only be saints 
and worthy guests, but also some who are — nworthy, 
such as Judas and others. So, you have heard that the 
word zs cannot be equivalent to stgnzfies in any language 
upon earth, but it expresses the reality wherever it 
stands. Finally, communion signifies here the general 
blessing of which many are participants, and of which 
many taste, as of a thing given without distinction to 
them all. This may be received in a twofold manner,— 
natural and spiritual. ior that is called a common or 
eeneral thing, of which many participate in common, as 
ef a common or public fountain, street, field, meadow, 
wood, fire, &c. For in this passage it cannot signify 
the communion of faith in the heart; for the text speaks 
here of a general biessing, which is to be received and 


enjoyed, mone the reat aia thecup. For the Apcs-| 


roy 


tie says, ‘The bread, which we break,—the cup, which 
we bless,” and afterwards, 1 Cor. 190,17, “ For we be- 
ing many are one bread, and one body: for we are all 
partakers of that one bread.’? So, it is now evident, 
that Kowena, the communion of the bedy of Christ, 
is nothing else than the body of Christ, as a general 
blessing divided out and distributed to be enjoyed by 
many. 

487. Now Paul speaks thus: “ The bread, which 


we break, is the communion of the body of Christ;”’ . 
that is, whoever partakes of this broken bread, partakes | 


of the body of Christ, as a common blessing distributed 
among many; for the bread is this common body of 
Christ, St. Paul says. This is spoken in clear, per- 
spicuous terms, which no one can understand differently, 
unless the words be changed. Now, not only the wor- 


402 THE LORD’S SUPPER: 


thy partake this broken bread, but Judas also and the un- 
worthy ; for the breaking of the bread is among the good 
and the bad. But it is not possible that the Jatter can 
partake it spiritually ; for they have no spiritual percep- 
dion, no faith ; so Christ also has no more than one body, 

488. If now the unworthy partake cf this, and 
have it in common among them, it must be natural, 


_and not spiritual; because there can be no kind of 


parlicipation, except to be either natural or spiritual. 


’ fora figurative, emblematical, or representative partici- 


pation cannot occur in the Eucharist, because there 
is no emblem or representation. Consequently the real 
body of Christ must exist in the bread, which we break, 
in order that the unworthy may partake of it Ina bodily 
or natural manner, because they cannot partake ef it 
spiritually, as this sentence of Paul reads, “ The bread, 


pfoody ς fbreak, is the communion ;’’ that is, the commen 


ΕΣ 
eee 


{ which we] Chrisé distrébuted among those who receite 


the broken bread. 

489. Here, on the contrary, this leader of the En- 
thusiasts wars over the word communion, and wishes to 
inake a spiritual communion out of it, which can occur 
among the pious only, and which must be explained or re- 
presented by the breaking of bread, as hy a figurative 
communion. In order that the text of St. Paul may re- 
ceive this construction, it must stand thus: ‘ This bread, 
which we break, is a sign of the communion of the body 
of Christ,” according to Gecolampadius ; or thus, “ This 
bread, which we break, represents the communion of the 
body of Christ,’”? according to Zwinglhius. First of all 
they strive to prove this on the following premises : 
‘«<'Thus it seems to us to be right ;” for their own fancy 
ts the strongest principle they have in the whole inves- 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 403 


tigation, with the exception that they baptize this fancy 
and give it a name,—*‘ Scripture and Creed.” 

490. Next to this they introduce the sentence which 
Paul inserts after this text: ‘‘ For we being many are 
one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of 
that bread.’ Here they frame certain unusual figures 
again,-—that bread here is a spiritual bread, namely, the 
body of Christ; and the words ene body with them is also ἃ 
fieure, namely, the saints only, who partake of this spir- 
itual bread ; and they strive against me thus: ‘ Because 
we are all one body of Christ, the unworthy cannot be in 
1815 body, but the true members only ; consequently this 
communion of the body must be spiritual.” 

491. What am I to do with these erring spints? 
At one raoment they make bread and communion /figu- 
raitve. ‘Then again another party of them make bread 
and communion spirituad ; they run against each other, 
as if they were Insane, and not one of them was certain of 
his course. We know that St. Paul does not say here, 
We being many are cne body of Christ, but merely, | 
We being many are one body, that is, one mass, οπαὶ 
community ; just as any town isa particular body andcor- | 
poration, in contradistinction to another town. From 
this, however, it does not follow, that every member of 
this body or community is a holy, spiritual member, and 
that thus he enjoys only spiritual communion ; but it is a. 
natural mass and body, in which there are both holy and 
unholy persons, who at the same time partake of this 
same bread. 

492. Nor can bread here be a spiritual bread; for 
St. Paul speaks of the same bread, of which he had been 
speaking before: ‘ ‘The bread which we break.” This 
bread is the same bread, wherefore it constitutes a pecu- 


404 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


har mass and body out of those who partake it,—not 
one body of Carist, but merely one body. For there is 
certainly a great difference between body, and the body 
of Christ ; and body is here really a figure, according to 
the style of Scripture, not a figurative body, according 
to a trope of reference; but a new, a different body, of 
which a natural body isan emblem. And this trope the 
text demands, where it says, we ere one body. Now 
we cannot all be one natural body. The Enthusiasts 
also should thus characterize their fioure, and they should 
prove it, and show in connection with this, that the body 
and blood of Christ are the signs of body and of blood. 

493. Ina word, St. Paul speaks in this whole pas- 
sage of no spiritual or figurative, but only of a natural 
communion, or of one general thing which is distributed. 
This you can perceive in all the expressions and exam- 
ples which he employs. First, in this, 1 Cor. 10, 17, 
‘or we being many are one bread, and one body: for 
we are all partakers of that bread.” [ἢ order that you 
may understand this communion in a natural sense, he 
says, if is one bread, namely, the bread of which he 
spoke in the text, ‘* The bread, which we break, of which 
we are all partakers.”” Now if this broxen bread can- 
not be spiritual bread, its distribution, breaking, or com- 
munion cannot be spiritual. 

494. Another quotation is this, 1 Cor. 10, 18: “ Be- 
hold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the 
sacrifices, partakers of the altar?” 

495. Here indeed there is no spiritual or figurative 
communion; for, to eat of an offering, is to taste of the 
meat on the altar naturally, or to be a natural partaker 
of the altar. And the altar with the offering is indeed 
but a natural object, a natural and general distribution 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 405 


among the sacrificers. And thus our bread also is a 
natural communion distributed among us. But if the 
bread is naturally broken in common, distributed, 
and received by us, the body of Christ, then, is naturally 
broken in common, distributed, and received by us. For 
the broken bread is the general, or distributed body of 
Christ, as Paul says, * The bread, which we break, is 
the communion of the body of Christ,’ 1 Cor. 10, 16. 
496. “Yes,” they exclaim, ‘ St. Paul speaks after- 
wards, verse 20, of the communion of dertls: I desire 
not that ye have the communion of derils ; here there 
must indeed be a spiritual communion; for devils have 
no body; hence the communion of the body of Christ, 
spoken of above, must also be spiritual.’ I answer: 
It seems to me that the word communion causes them 
to err, because they do not rightly understand it ; and it 
is true, indeed, that this word is not altogether as pure 
German, as I could earnestly desire it to be. For, fo 
have communion, is generally understood, to have ing 
fercourse with any one. But it ought in this place to 
mean as much as 1 have explained above,—as when 
many persons use, partake, or share one common thing; 
this I would express by the word communion; I can 
find no other word better adapted for that purpose. 
497, Well, if devils really have no body, though this 
expression indeed had reference to a spiritual commu- 
nion, how will it follow, that for this reason a spiritual 
communion of the body of Christ must be understood, in 
the foregoing passage? Isit sufficient merely for a person 
to make the assertion? But Paul speaks here ofa natural 
communion of devils; a fact which the words prove that 
precede and follow this text. Just before, he speaks 
thus: The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 


406 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


sacrifice to devils. You perceive that he speaks of 

sacrifices to idols, calling them offerings in sacrifice to 
devils, and he is treating here of the eating of sacrifice 
offered to idols. εξ eats of the sacrifice to dev- 
als, heis inthe communion of the devil. 'Thisis surely 
a natural communion, for it is an offering to Satan, a 
physical offering, which many eat and enjoy, and are 
thus physically in the physical communion of Satan, 
that is, in the sacrifice of the devil which is offered to Sa- 
tan. Just as we might say, that we, both worthy and 
unworthy, are in the communion of God, when we re- 
ceive the body of Christ in a natural manner ; for we en- 
joy the body of Christ, and become partakers of it, which 
is an offering of God, and is sacrificed to God. 

498. The following expressions also, verse 21, re- 
quire this view: ‘ Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, 
and the cup of devils.’”” Can you perceive of what he 
is speaking, and that he does not wish us to be in the 
communion of devils, namely, that we should not drink 
the cup of devils? If the cup of devils is a material 
thing, then drinking the cup of devils must be the natu- 
ral communion of devils; just as to diink the cup of the 
Lord, is to have a natural communion with Ged or the 
Lord ; that is, to be partaker of the thing, which belongs 
to the Lord, or to God, or which is offered to God. Now 
the cup of the Lord, 15 not only a cup, but also a commu- 
nion of the blood of Christ, which we being many enjoy. 

499. Paul further observes, ‘‘ Ye cannot be parta- 
kers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”? Is 
it not abundantly obvious from this, that the table of dey- 
ils is a physical or natural object? Then the commu- 
nion or participation of it must also be a natural thing, 
and so too the table of the Lerd is a natural object, and 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 407 


its communion a natural communion. For we must not be 
so dull of apprehension, as in this passage to understand by 
the communion of devils, that a person enjoys the devil 
himself, or partakes of him, apart from the external ob- 
ject, because both stand here denominated the table and 
the cup of devils, but the object or element only which 
belongs to the devil, or is offered to him, is received and 
participated. Just as we call it the communion of God, 
or of the Lord, when we are partakers of the element or 
object which is the Lord’s, or belongs to him, as the 
text clearly expresses it: “Ye cannot drink the cup of 
the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers 
of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.’’ 

500. It is quite a different expression if I say, ‘the 
communion of devils,” or, “ the communion of the ta- 
ble of devils ;”’ but yet these expressions have the same 
meaning, as they are spoken in reference to the same 
objects. For the communion of the table of devils in- 
dicates the objects or zngredients of which this commu- 
nion consists; but the communion of devils indicates the 
being for whom the object or element is intended, or to 
whom that belongs of which the communion consists. 
Thus too the communion of the Lord’s table, is a dif- 
ferent expression fromthe communion of the Lord. 'The 
communion of the Lord’s table, indicates the thing or 
the object in which the communion consists, but com- 
munion of the Lord, indicates who he is, in the object 
of whom this communion consists. 

601. In like manner, Paul, in chap. 11, 26, uses two 
similar expressions in reference to the Eucharist, at one 
time speaking of eating the bread: “ As often as ye eat 
this bread ;”’ again, ‘ And thus let him eat of the bread,”’ 
says he. But afterwards he says: ‘‘ Whoever eats this 


ἀ08 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


bread of the Lord.”? The first expression tells us what 
it is that is eaten; the second, whose it is, and to whom 
that belongs which is eaten. So in this expression,— 
the communion of the body of Christ,—it is merely 
shown what the object is of which the communion con- 
sists, namely, the body of Christ, and not whose this 
thing or object is, for it belongs to God, or the Lord. 
Wherefore no spiritual communion can be understood 
here; because the broken bread is this communion of the 
body of Christ, and the body of Christ is the matter or 
object, in which the communion consists, which both the 
worthy and the unworthy may enjoy, because they en- 
joy the broken bread. 

002. And if one would speak concerning the spirit- 
ual communion, it would not be necessary to name the 
two objects, bedy and blood of Christ, but it would be 
sufficient to name Christ only, as Paul says in another 
place, 1 Cor. 1, 9, ‘ God is faithful, by whom ye were 
called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our 
Lord.”” Why should he so distinctly speak of the body 
and of the blood, and, as it were, place two communions 
in contrast with each other, as if there were two distinct 
communions, the one quite different from the other ἢ 
Since a spiritual communion is one single communion, 
and not two distinct communions. So too, the commu: 
nion of the bedy of Christ, is not the communion of the 
blood of Christ, nor the contrary. For St. Paul even 
here distinguishes them from each other. Now it is im- 
possible that, in a spiritual communion, the body and 
blood of Christ should be separated, and constitute two 
distinct communions, as the case is here. Consequently 
the communion of the body and blood of Christ here, 
must be natural and not spiritual. 


aii » oS 
THE LORD'S SUPPER» AOS 


503. Thus we possess this strong text in our favor, 
still secure and unadulterated, in opposition to the na- 
ked, worthless comments of the Enthusiasts. Now if 
they cannot admit or believe all this, we still have shown 
in connection with it reasons and principles sufficient 
why we are tonsirained to maintain our interpretation. 
For were I even a Turk, a Jew, or a Pagan, whe be- 
lieves nothing of the Christian faith; and shouid [ not- 
withstanding hear or read this passage of Scripture con 
cerning the Eucharist, £ would still he ive to say, “I do 
not, it is true, believe in the Christian doctrines; but I 
must ΒΑῪ this ai least, if they wish to be Christians, and 
to mnaintain their doctrines, they are bound to believe, 
that the body and blood of at or eaten and drunken 
naturally in the bread and wine.’ 

504. And the Enthusiasts ought to know that, be- 
cause they have to acknowledge cur interpretation to be 
simple, strictly according to the order and agreement of 
the words, and yet are not satisfied, nor willing to 
yield,—we on the other hand are far less satisfed 
and willing to yield, in consequence of their meagre, 
dry, shelterless comments, which they draw out of 
their own brains, against the simple construction of 
the words. For if we must depend upon sige barren 
words, we should rather depend upon the naked, unvar- 

nished text, which God himself has spoken, than upon 
the unadorned and tattered comments, which men have 
imagined. And though they may christen these com- 
ments with the name of Scripture and Creed, it shall not 
affect us, until they shall have proved also, that these 
comments are really Scripture and Creed, as they would 
falsely denominate them. For they ought to bear in 
mind, that we are assuredly as unwilling to give errone= 


29 


410 THE LORD’S SUPFER. 


ous instruction, as they can be. This, praise be to 
(rod, we have proved with facts, more fully and with 
greater force than they, so that they dare not arrogate 
this renown to themselves in so lordly a spirit, as if they 
alone were thus disposed. But Christ will be the judge 
over all those who tell falsehoods and lead astray. 

505. On this account, I triumph in humility before 
God, that i this littlé book Σ have so far prevailed as 
to prove that there can be no figure in thé Eucharist, 
but that the words are to be understood just as they 
read,—* This is my body,” “this is my blood,”’—this 
E know most certainly. For if these words be figura- 
tive here, they must be figuiative in all other passages 
which relate to the holy Supper. Now we have shown 
how the Enthusiasts themselves acknowledge and teach 
that they are not figurative in the sentence from St. 
Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 27, ‘* Whosoever shall eat this bread 
and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty 
of the body and blood of the Lord.”? Nor are they figu- 
rative in this sentence, chap. 10, 16, “ The cup of bless- 
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ??? On these passages there is nothing left on 
which a reply against us can be built. Now if there is 
no fioure in the words of the Eucharist, it is abundantly 
clear, that our interpretation is correct, and that of the 
Enthusiasts false and erroneous. 

506. The sixth chapter of John, because it does not 
speak in reference to the Eucharist, and since it has al- 
ready been treated of by others, as by Philip Melanch- 
thon, John Briens, and many others, I pass over for the 
present, though I have the intention of discussing 
this also, in a single sermon, and of adding my opinioh 
on this subject to theirs. 


ἜΞΕ LIRD’S SUPPER. All 


Εν UE) ον, 


507. Because I see that the longer the time, the more 
numercus are those sects and errorcous opinions, and 
that there is no cessation of Satan’s frenzy and malignity, 
Jest in conse juence of this, during my life, or after my 
death, some future heretics may assume to themselves 
the sanction of my naine, and falsely quote my writings 
in support of their errors, as enthusiasts on the Lord’s 
Sup; er and on baptism have begun to do; in this Disser- 
titioa 1 wish to confess my faith before God and the 
whole world, from article to article, in which faith I ex- 
pect to persevere till my death; with the help of God, 
to depart from the world in it, and to appear before the 
judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ. And I see the 
necessity of doing this, in order that no one after my 
death may say, “If Luther were now living, he would 
maintain and teach this or that article differently ; for be 
did not suficiently meditate on the subject.” 

003. On the contrary, I assert now as then, and then» 
as now, that, with the grace of God, I have considered 
all these articles with the greatest anxiety, compared 
them with the Scriptures frequently again and again, 
and would as assuredly defend them, as I have now de- 
fended the Sacrament of the Altar. I am not intoxica- 
ted at present, nor void of reflection ; I know what I am 
saying; I deeply feel, too, what responsibility I shall 
sustain on the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ at the 
day of judgment. Therefore no one shall charge me 
with loose or careless decisions; J am in earnest. For, 
by the grace of God, I am not unacquainted with Satan 
in the most of his wiles. If he can pervert and corrupt 
the word and Scripture of God, what may he not do 
with my words, or those of another man? 


AAG - a 
ΕΣ THE LORD’s SUPPER. 
509. First, 1 beheve in my heart that primary arti- 


cle concerning the Majesty of God: that Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, a perfect 
Unity, is naturally and truly God, the Creator of hea- 
ven and earth, and ail things,—in opposition to the 
Arians, the Macedonians, the Sabellians, and similar 
heretics: Gen. 1, 1; as all have maimtained, up to this 
time, both in the Roman, and in the Christian churek 
ecth nel the world. 

510. Secondly, I believe, and I know that the Scrip- 
ture teaches us, that the second person in the Trinity, 
namely, the Son, alone became a rea] man, conceived of 
the Holy Ghost, without the aid of man, and born of 
the pure, holy Virgin Mary, as a real, natural mother ; 
as the whole has been clearly described by St. Luke, 
chap. 1, 26, and the Prophets have foretold; so that the 
Father, or the Holy Ghost, did not become man, as 
some heretics have imagined. 

ii, J believe also that God the Son did not receive 
a body only without a soul—as some heretics have 
tauent,—but a humen soul also, that is, the full, entire 
humanity ; that he is ie the seed or child promised to 
Abraham and David , and was born naturally the son of 
Mary, in every mode and form a true man, as [ am myself, 
and as is every other man, Heb. 7, 26, with the exception 
that he came free from sin, by the Holy Ghost, through 
the Virgin alone. 

512. And 1 believe that this man is true God, as an 
eternal, indivisible person, made of God and man}; so 
that Mary, the holy Virgin, is a real, true mother, not 

only of the man Christ, as the Nestorians teach, but of 
the Son of God, as Luke, chap. 1, 35, says; “ That 
holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall ὃς called 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 413 


the Son of God,” that is, mine and every man’s Lord 
Jesus Christ,—the only, true, natural Son of God and 
the Virgin Mary, truly God and man. 

515. I believe also, that this Son of God and of 
Mary, our Lord Jesus Christ, has suffered for us poor 
sinners, was crucified, died, and was buried, by which 
he has redeemed us from sin, from death, and the eter- 

nal wrath of God, with his innocent blood; and that 
on the third day he arose from the dead, ascended up to 
heaven, and is now sitting at the right hand of Ged, the 
Almighty Father, Lord over all lords, King over all 
kings, and over all creatures in heaven, on the earth, 
and under the earth, ever death and life, ever sin Sha 
righteousness. 

514, For I confess, and fee] abie io prove from 
Scripture, that all men ise descended from one man, 
Adam; and from this man, through their birth, they 
bring with them and inherit all ‘ie evils of the Fail, 
the ail and the sin, which the same το through 
the malionity of Satan, contracted In Paradise; and 
that thus all men after him are born, hve, and die 
in sin, and must have been exposed to everlasting death, 
had not Jesus Christ come to our aid, and received this 
guilt and sin upon himself, as an innocent lamb; Ps he 
a paid for us by his sufferings, and did he still 
stand and plead for us, as a true, eines: Bee 
Savior, and the only Priest and Bishop of our sot 

515. In this belief, I condemn and reject as errone= 

s heing 


m~ 


ous, all doctrines which exalt our freewill, a 

strongly opposed to this mediation and grace ot our 
Savior, Jesus Christ. For since apart from Christ, our 
master is death and sin, and Satan is our God anid 
Prince, there can be no strength or power, no wisdom 


414 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


or intelligence, by which we can restore and elevate our- 
selves to righteousness and to life; but blinded and cap- 
tivated, we would have to be subject to Satan and sin, 
doing and thinking that which is pleasing to him only, 
and which is opposed to God and his commandments. 

516. For this reason, I condemn both the new and 
the old Pelagians, who will not admit original! sin to be 
sin, but only an infirmity or error. But because death 
is passed over all men, original sin cannot merely be an 
infirmity, but an enormous, an immense sin, as St. 
Paul says, Rom. Ὁ, 23, “ For the wages of sin is death ;”’ 
and again, 1 Cor. 15, 56, “ The sting of death is sin.” 
So too says David, Psalm 51, 5, ‘* Behold, I was shapen 
in iniquity; and in sin did my incther conceive me.” 
Hfe does not say, My mother hath conczived me with 
sin; but, I, lam begctien.of sinful seed, and my mcther 
hath concetved mein sin, that is, in my mcther’s woanb 
have I grown from sinful seed, as the Hebrew text 
has it. 

O17. Next to this I also condemn and reject, as the 
inventions and errors of Satan, all orders, rules, cloisters, 
institutions, whatever have been founded and instituted 
by men, beyond, and mdependent of, the Scriptures, 
connected with vows and obligations, although many 
illustrious saints have passed their lives in these institu- 
tions, and have been misled through them up to this time, 
vet as the elect of God, they have finally still been redeem- 
ed, and made their escape by faith in Jesus Christ. For, 
because these orders, institutions, and sects, have existed 
and have been perpetuated in the design, that men by 
this mode and by such services desired, and might be 
able, to be saved, and to escape from sin and death, they 
are therefore notorious, abominable abuses, even a denial 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 415 


of the only aid and grace of our only Savior and Medi- 
ator, Jesus Christ. ‘ For there is none other name 
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be 
saved,’ Acts 4, 12; and it is impossible that there can 
be mere Saviors, modes, or means, to be saved, except 
by his own righteousness, which Jesus Christ our 
Savior has bestowed upon us, and placed before God 
for us, as our only mercy-seat, Rom. 3, 25. 

518. Now, it would be a laudable thing, if cloisters 
or monastic institutions, were kept for the purpose of 
teaching young people in them the word of God, the 
Scriptures, and for imparting a Christian education, by 
which we might train up and prepare better men, 
well qualified and instructed for bishops, preachers, 
and other servants of the church, and for the duties 
of el government, as well as finely educated, well in- 

wiiohed: women, who might afterwards train up, and 
rear a Christian family of children. But as a mode of 
seeking righteousness, it 1s all the doctrine and creed of 
Satan, 1 Tim. 4. 

519. But the holy orders, and the proper institutions 
which God himself has founded, are these three: the 
Ministry, the Matrimonial Sadan and Civil Govern- 
ment. All those who are engaged in clerical! duties, or 
ihe ministration of the word, are in an order or position, 
holy, proper, good, acceptable to God; as those who 
preach, administer the sacraments, superintend the treas- 
ury, keep the vestry, bear messages, or act as servants 
Ἴη performing the commands of such persons, these are 
all engaged in works holy in the presence of God. 

520. Again, any father and mother regulating their 
family with discretion, educating their children to the 
service of God, are engaged in a vocation divine and 


416 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


holy: and thus this also is a holy institution. So too 
when children or servants are obedient to their parents 
or masters, they are performing holy duties, and who- 
ever is found thus engaged, is a living saint upon earth. 

521. And thus princes and lords, judges, officers, 
chancellors, secretaries, male and female servants, who 
attend upon them, and all besides who are sutmssively 
obedient, are engaged in holy employments, and their 
occupation is holy in the sight of God. And for this 
reason,—because these three institutions or orders are 
embraced in the word and commandments of God. Fut 
whatever is contained in the word of God, must be holy ; 
for the word of God is holy, and sanctifies every thing 
In connection with It. 

022. Besides these three institutions and orders, is 
the general or universal order of Christian love, in which 
not only the duties of the three orders are embraced, but 
every act of benevolence performed towards the needy 
in general; as to feed the hungry, to give drink to the 
thirsty, to forgive our enemies, to pray for all, to suffer 
all kind of evil upon earth. ehold, all these are called 
good and holy works. | However, neither of these orders 
isa means of salvation; but there remains one way only, 
independent of all these, namely, faith in Jesus Christ. 

523. For, to be holy, and to be saved, are entirely 
diferent things. We are saved through Christ only ; 
but we become holy both through this faith and through 
these divine institutions and orders. Even wicked men 
may possess many holy qualities, but in consequence of 
these qualities they are not saved ; for God wishes these 
works of ours to be performed to his glory and honor ; 
and all those who are saved in the faith of Christ, per- 
form these works, and cbserve these orders. 


ἱ γῶν 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 417 


524. But whatever has been said respecting the mat- 
rimonial relations, should also be understood in reference 
to witows and unmarried women; for they also belong 
to the domestic circle. If now these orders and divine 
institutions do not secare salvation, what then should 
the institutions and convents of Satan effect, which 
have been founded entirely without divine authority, 
and besides this they ovpose and obstruct the only: 
effectual means, namely, faith in Christ. 

525. Thirdly, 1 beheve in the Holy Ghost, who 
with the Father and Son, is true God, and proceeded 
from the Father and Son from eternity, yet in one divine 
essence and nature a different person. By whom, as by 
a living, eternal, divine gift and endowment, all believers 
are endowed with faith and other spiritual gifts, raised 
from the dead, freed from sin, and made joyful and se- 
rene, free and secure in their consciences. For this ts 
our assurance, if we feel this witness of the Spirit in our 
heart, that God will be our Father, will forgive our sins, 
and have everlasting life bestowed upon us. 

526, ‘There are three persons and one God, who has 
given himself to us wholly and perfectly, with all that 
he is, and all that he possesses. The Father gives hims 
self to us, with heaven and earth, together with every 
other creature, in order that they may serve us, and 
contribute to our necessities. But through the fall of 
Adam, this gift is obscured and rendered unavailable. 
For this reason, the Son afterwards gave himself also to 
us, he bestowed upon us all his works, his sufferings, his 
wisdom and righteousness, and reconciled us with the 
Father, by which we, hving and restored again, might 
know and possess the Father also with his gifts. 

527. But because this grace would be accessible to 


4is THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


no one, if it remained confined so profoundly, and could 
not come to us, the Holy Ghost therefore descends to us, 
and bestows himself wholly and entirely ; he teaches us 
to know this beneficence of Christ which has been mani- 
Fested ta us; he helps us to receive and preserve ἐξ, to 
use and impart it effectually, to increase and extend it. 
And he does this externally and internally: internally, 
by faith and other spiritual gifts, but externally through 
the Gospel, through Baptism, and the Sacrament of the 
Altar, by which he comes to us, as through three media 
or means, and exercises the sufferings of Christ in us, 
and employs it for the promotion of’ salvation. 

523. Hence I believe and know, that as there is no 
more than one Gospel and one Christ, so also there is no 
more than one baptism. And tbat this baptism in itself 
is a divine ordinance, as is his Gospel also. And just 
as the Gospel is neither false nor incorrect, though some 
falsely abuse, teach, or disbelieve it, so baptism also is 
neither false nor incorrect, though some may probably 
receive or administer it without ith, or otherwise mis- 
use it. Hence I condemn and reject altogether the doc- 
trine of the Anabaptists, and the Donatists, and whomso- 
ever they may be who rebaptize. 

0929. I would also make the same confession in re- 
ference to the Sacrament of the Altar, that the true body 
and blood of Christ are eaten and drunk in it orally, 
although the priests who administer it, or those who re- 
ceive it, do not believe, or else misuse it otherwise. lor 
it does not depend upon the belief or unbelief of man, but 
upon the wordand orderof God. In this belief Ε must con- 
tinue, unless they should first change the word and order 
of God, and construe it differently, as the present enemies 
of the sacrament pretend, who certainly have nothing but 


THE LORD'S SUPPER, 418 


bread and wine, for they do not possess the words and 
instituted order of God, but pervert and corrupt them 
acording to their own fancy. 

530. Again, I believe that there is a holy Christian 
church upon éarth, which is the congregation and total 
amount or collection of all Christians in the world, who 
are the bride of Christ, and his spiritual body, of which 
he 15 the enly head; and thé bishops or preachers are 
not the heads, nor the lords, nor the bridegrooms of this 
church, but servants, friends, or, as the word bishop im> 
ports; superintendents, stewards, or elders. 

531. And this Christian church exists not only under 
the Romian church or the Pope, but in all the world, as 
the Prophets have predicted that the Gospel of Christ 
should spread throughout the world, Psalm 19,6. So 
that among Papists; Turks, Persians; Tartars, this 
Christian church is visibly diffused in the world, but 
collected spiritually; under one Gospel and faith, under 
one head which is Jesus Christ. For the papal suprem- 
acy is undoubtedly the real government of Antichrist; 
or antichristian tyranny; which sttteth in the temple of 
God, and reigns with human authority; as Christ, Matt: 
22, 24; and Paul, 2 Thes. 2, 4, predict. -Although the 
Turks and all heretics; whéréver they may be, are in- 
cluded in this abominable throng, who are spoken of as 
sitting in the holy seat, but not similarly to the Papacy. 

532. In this Christian church, and wherever it ex- 
ists, there is forgiveness of sins, that is, the kingdom of 
erace and of true absolution... For there the Gospel ex- 
ists, baptism, and the Sacrament of the Altar, in which is 
offered and received the forgiveness of sins, and Christ,, 
his Spirit, and God, are present there. And apart from 
this Christian church, there is no salvation nor forgiveness 


3490 THE LORD'S SUPPERS 


of sins, but everlasting death and condemnation} although 
there is great ostentation of holiness and of many good 
works, yet it is all unavailing. But this remission of 
sins is to be expected not once only, as in baptism, as 
taught by the Novatians, but as frequently as we feel 
' the need of it till death. bi 

533. But those indulgences which the Romish church 
professes to have and to confer, is a detestable imposi- 
tion, not only because they are special devices fancied. 
and framed, apart from the general remission of sins, 
which is bestowed through the Gospel and the sacra- 
ments in all the Christian church, and in consequence of 
this, thus impairs and nullifies the general remission ; 
but also because they ground and establish the satisfac- 
tion for sins upon human works and the merit of saints, 
though Christ only can do eneugh for us, and though he 
has done quite sufficient: 

534. As to the dead, because the Scripture gives no 
account of their condition, I believe that it is no sin with 
free devotion to pray in the following or a similar man- 
ner: ““ Blessed God, if the soul is in a condition acces- 
sible to mercy, be thou gracrous unto 11. And when 
this is done once or twice, let it be enough. For vigils 
and masses for souls, and yearly solemnities, are of no 
avail, but the annual fair of Satan. 

5385, Nor have we any thing in the Scripture con® 
cerning purgatory, and this is also the mere fabrication 
of visionaries; therefore I maintain that it is not neces= 
sary to’believe in it. Although all things are possible 
to God, he can very readily cause souls to be tortured 
after death fora limited time ; but he has not permitted it 
to-be spoken or written about. Consequently he does not 
wish to have it believed. And though I were assured of 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 421 


a pargatory, it would not be proper to teach it in the 
congregation, or to practice vigils, or read portions of 
Scriptnre against it. f 

036. Others have assailed the invocation of the 
saints, before myself, with which I am pleased; and 1 
believe it too, that Christ alone should be invoked 
as our Mediator,—a truth which the Scripture teach- 
es, and which is certain. Respecting invocation of 
saints, there is nothing said in Scripture; therefore it 
must be indeterminate, and a thing not to be believed. 

537. In reference to unction, if it were maintaine:l 
according to the Gosnel, Mark 6, 15, and James 5, 14, 
I would have nothing to say; but to make a sacra- 
ment out of it, is all nugatory. For just as a persor, 
instead of vigils and masses for souls, might with great 
propriety deli er a sermon concerning death and eter- 
nal life, and also pray during the cbsequies, and call to 
mind our approaching end, is it appears the ancients 
were in the habit of doing ; so it would also be a Jauda- 
ble thing to visit the sick, to pray for and ai!monish them, 
and if any one cesired to be anointed with oil in the 
name of God, he should be permitted. 

3c. Phere is no need of making sacraments out 
cf matrimony and the ministry, since these orders are 
sufficiently holy in themselves. So indeed repentance is 
nothing else but the effect and power of baptism. And 
thus the two sacraments reinain,—baptism and the Sap- 
per of the Lord in connection with the Gospel, through 
which the Holy Ghost abundantly offers, bestows, aud 
accomplishes the remission of sins. 

539. As the greatest abonunation | regard the mass 
pesiigtiod or soul as a sin-olfering or goo! work, upon 
which all convents and monasteries ere now founded ; 


oy? 


“Ὁ 


_—————— ---- στα 


490 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


but, if it be the will of God, they shall soon be subver- 
ted. For though I was a great, reckless, scandalous 
sinner, and wasted my youthful days in a thoughtless and 
unprofitable manner, yet my greatest sin consisted in 
| being so illustrious a monk, and with so many masses, 
for more than fifteen years, shamelessly offending, cru- 
) cifying, and torturing my beloved Lord. But glory and 
praise forever be to his unspeakable grace, that he has 
snatched me out of this abomination, and still continues 
to uphold and strengthen me daily in the true faith, al- 
though I am altogether ungrateful. 

540. Accordingly I have advised, and still advise 
people to leave the convents and monasteries, and come 
out into the true Christian order, so as to escape from 
the abominations of the mass and affected sanctity,—as 
chastity, poverty, obedience,—by which they hope to be 
saved. ‘For as laudable as it was in the infancy of the 
Christian church, to persist in a state of celibacy, it is 
equally worthy of detestation now, by these institutions, 
to deny the aid and grace of Christ ; it is possible indeed 
to live in a state of celibacy and widowhood with chas- 
tity, independent of these detestable institutions. 

541. Images, bells, robes for the mass, church orna- 
ments, altars, candles, and the like, I regard as things 
indifferent ; whoever wishes can omit them. Drawings, 
however, from the Scripture and from good histories, I 
consider useful; yet these should be left to the choive or 
option of every one; for I do not coincide with those 
who strip churches of such ornaments. 

544. Finally, I believe in the resurrection of all the 
dead on the last day, both of the pious and the wicked, 
so that each one may receive in his body a retribution 
according to his deeds; and thus the righteous shall live 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 423 


forever with Christ, but the wicked shall perish eter- 
nally with Satan and his angels. For I do not agree 
with those who teach, that the devils will finally be re- 
stored to happiness. 

043. This is my creed; for thus all true Christians 
believe, and thus the holy Scriptures teach us. But of 
that which I have not fully treated here, my other wri- 
tings will bear sufficient testimony, especially those which 
have been issued within the last four or five years. 1 
pray that all pious hearts will bear me witness, and unite 
their prayers with mine, that I may persist in this faith, 
and conclude my life in its maintenance. For though, in 
consequence of persecution or the pangs of death, I might 
say something different,—which God, I hope, may pre- 
vent,—yet let such expressions be disregarded; and by 
this declaration I wish to have it publicly known, that 
any such expression will be incorrect, resulting from the 
influence of Satan. In this determination may my Lord 
and Savior Jesus Christ assist me: Blessed be his name 
forever. Amen. 


OT. 205. te ΝΥ 


νοϊμκερίοαίλοι ‘ 
sie a 
PAR: ἐ Ἢ bie 


aay 


᾿ ᾿ 


otal ie $e 


ec 
hid = 
ἢ 


᾿ ᾿ δι} ὌΝ γ Σ ie iris 
7 } MM 5) 
' 


sane 
4 4 we 
a 


πο νος πω arama nA ote Reve mmm hee ag a τὸ 


died bs WELT or remetmrmmmne omen ney NNT! eam ners eee κυ ρυνθξνω ἧς 


ὑπο τὐοανονισανοναααννονὐδμουι ας 


Mudd 


| 


ill 
TH 


= ceaacaacncageep er aa ET 


| 


1 
ἣϊ 


HEH 


ΠΠῚΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ| 


ATT 


— - 


